Centralized traffic control

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Active Union Switch and Signal Co relay based CTC machine at THORN tower inThorndale, PA

Centralized traffic control (CTC) is a form of railway signalling that originated in North America.
CTC consolidates train routing decisions that were previously carried out by local signal operators or
the train crews themselves. The system consists of a centralized train dispatcher's office that
controls railroad interlockings and traffic flows in portions of the rail system designated as CTC
territory. One hallmark of CTC is a control panel with a graphical depiction of the railroad. On this
panel the dispatcher can keep track of trains' locations across the territory that the dispatcher
controls. Larger railroads may have multiple dispatcher's offices and even multiple dispatchers for
each operating division. These offices are usually located near the busiest yards or stations, and
their operational qualities can be compared to air traffic towers.
Contents
[hide]

1 Background

2 Development and technology

o

2.1 Signals and controlled points

3 Operation

4 By country
o

4.1 Australia

4.2 United States

4.3 New Zealand

5 Suppliers
o

5.1 Complete systems

5.2 Control office equipment

5.3 Field equipment

6 See also

7 References

8 External links

Background[edit]
Key to the concept of CTC is the notion of traffic control as it applies to railroads. Trains moving in
opposite directions on the same track cannot pass each other without special infrastructure such
as sidings and switches that allow one of the trains to move out of the way. Initially the only two ways
for trains to arrange such interactions was to somehow arrange it in advance or provide a
communications link between the authority for train movements (the dispatcher) and the trains
themselves. These two mechanisms for control would be formalized by railroad companies in a set
of procedures called train order operation, which was later partly automated through use
of Automatic Block Signals (ABS).
The starting point of each system was the railroad timetable that would form the advanced routing
plan for train movements. Trains following the timetable would know when to take sidings, switch
tracks and which route to take at junctions. However if train movements did not go as planned the
timetable would then fail to represent reality, and attempting to follow the printed schedule could lead
to routing errors or even accidents. This was especially common on single-track lines that comprised
the majority of railroad route miles in North America. Pre-defined "meets" could lead to large delays
if either train failed to show up, or worse, an "extra" train not listed in the timetable could suffer a
head-on collision with another train that did not expect it.
Therefore, timetable operation was supplemented with train orders, which superseded the
instructions in the timetable. From the 1850s until the middle of the twentieth century, train orders
were telegraphed in Morse code by a dispatcher to a local station, where the orders would be written
down on standardized forms and a copy provided to the train crew when they passed that station,
directing them to take certain actions at various points ahead: for example, take a siding to meet
another train, wait at a specified location for further instructions, run later than scheduled, or
numerous other actions. The development of Direct Traffic Control via radio or telephone between
dispatchers and train crews made telegraph orders largely obsolete by the 1970s.
Where traffic density warranted it, multiple tracks could be provided, each with a timetable-defined
flow of traffic which would eliminate the need for frequent single track-style "meets." Trains running
counter to this flow of traffic would still require train orders, but other trains would not. This system
was further automated by the use of Automatic Block Signaling and interlocking towers which
allowed for efficient and failsafe setting of conflicting routes at junctions and that kept trains following
one another safely separated. However any track that supported trains running bi-directionally, even
under ABS protection, would require further protection to avoid the situation of two trains
approaching each other on the same section of track. Such a Mexican standoff not only represents a
safety hazard, but also would require one train to reverse direction to the nearest passing point.[1]
Before the advent of CTC there were a number of solutions to this problem that did not require the
construction of multiple single direction tracks. Many western railroads used an automatic system
called absolute permissive block (APB), where trains entering a stretch of single track would cause
all of the opposing signals between there and the next passing point to "tumble down" to a Stop
position thus preventing opposing trains from entering.[2] In areas of higher traffic density, sometimes

bi-directional operation would be established between manned interlocking towers. Each section of
bi-directional track would have a traffic control lever associated with it to establish the direction of
traffic on that track. Often, both towers would need to set their traffic levers in the same way before a
direction of travel could be established. Block signals in the direction of travel would display
according to track conditions and signals against the flow of traffic would always be set to their most
restrictive aspect. Furthermore, no train could be routed into a section of track against its flow of
traffic and the traffic levers would not be able to be changed until the track section was clear of
trains. Both APB and manual traffic control would still require train orders in certain situations, and
both required trade-offs between human operators and granularity of routing control.

Development and technology[edit]

CTC panel at the Promenade Street Tower, Providence, Rhode Island. US&S installed the equipment in 1946 for
the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad.

The ultimate solution of the costly and imprecise train order system was developed by the General
Railway Signal company as their trademarked "Centralized Traffic Control" technology. Its first
installation in 1927 was on a 40-mile stretch of the New York Central Railroadbetween Stanley
and Berwick, Ohio, with the CTC control machine located at Fostoria, Ohio.[3] CTC was designed to
enable the train dispatcher to control train movements directly, bypassing local operators and
eliminating written train orders. Instead, the train dispatcher could directly see the trains' locations
and efficiently control the train's movements by displaying signals and controlling switches. It was
also designed to enhance safety by reporting any track occupancy (see track circuit) to a human
operator and automatically preventing trains from entering a track against the established flow of
traffic.
What made CTC machines different from standard interlocking machines and ABS was that the vital
interlocking hardware was located at the remote location and the CTC machine only displayed track
state and sent commands to the remote locations. A command to display a signal would require the
remote interlocking to set the flow of traffic and check for a clear route through the interlocking. If a
command could not be carried out due to the interlocking logic, the display would not change on the
CTC machine. This system provided the same degree flexibility that the manual traffic control has
before it, but without the cost and complexity associated with providing a manned operator at the
end of every route segment. This was especially true for lightly used lines that could never hope to
justify so much overhead.
Initially the communication was accomplished by dedicated wires or wire pairs, but later this was
supplanted by pulse code systems utilizing a single common communications link and relay-based
telecommunications technology similar to that used in crossbar switches. Also, instead of only
displaying information about trains approaching and passing throughinterlockings, the CTC machine
displayed the status of every block between interlockings, where previously such sections had been
considered "dark territory" (i.e., of unknown status) as far as the dispatcher was concerned. The
CTC system would allow the flow of traffic to be set over many sections of track by a single person at

a single location as well as control of switches and signals at interlockings, which also came to be
referred to as control points.[4]
CTC machines started out as small consoles in existing towers only operating a few nearby remote
interlockings and then grew to control more and more territory, allowing less trafficked towers to be
closed. Over time the machines were moved directly into dispatcher offices, eliminating the need for
dispatchers to first communicate with block operators asmiddlemen. In the late 20th century, the
electromechanical control and display systems were replaced with computer operated displays.
While similar signaling control mechanisms have been developed in other countries, what sets CTC
apart is the paradigm of independent train movement between fixed points under the control and
supervision of a central authority.

Signals and controlled points[edit]

Newly installed CTC automatic block signals along the Union Pacific RailroadYuma Subdivision, Coachella, California

CTC makes use of railway signals to convey the dispatcher's instructions to the trains. These take
the form of routing decisions at controlled points that authorize a train to proceed or stop. Local
signaling logic will ultimately determine the exact signal to display based on track occupancy status
ahead and the exact route the train needs to take so the only input required from the CTC system
amounts to the go, no-go instruction.
Signals in CTC territory are one of two types: an absolute signal, which is directly controlled by the
train dispatcher and helps design the limits of a control point, or an intermediate signal, which is
automatically controlled by the conditions of the track in that signal's block and by the condition of
the following signal. Train dispatchers cannot directly control intermediate signals and so are almost
always excluded from the dispatcher's control display except as an inert reference.
The majority of control points are equipped with remote control, power-operated switches. These
switches often are dual-controlled switches, as they may be either remotely controlled by the train
dispatcher or by manually operating a lever or pump on the switch mechanism itself (although the
train dispatcher's permission is generally required to do so). These switches may lead to a passing
siding, or they may take the form of a crossover, which allows movement to an adjacent track, or a
"turnout" which routes a train to an alternate track (or route).

Operation[edit]

Computer-based controls for a modern electronic interlocking

Although some railroads still rely on older, simpler electronic lighted displays and manual controls, in
modern implementations, dispatchers rely on computerized systems similar to supervisory control
and data acquisition (SCADA) systems to view the location of trains and the aspect, or display, of
absolute signals. Typically, these control machines will prevent the dispatcher from giving two
trains conflicting authority without needing to first have the command fail at the remote interlocking.
Modern computer systems generally display a highly simplified mock-up of the track, displaying the
locations of absolute signals and sidings. Track occupancy is displayed via bold or colored lines
overlaying the track display, along with tags to identify the train (usually the number of the lead
locomotive). Signals which the dispatcher can control are represented as either at Stop (typically
red) or "displayed" (typically green). A displayed signal is one which is not displaying Stop and the
exact aspect that the crew sees is not reported to the dispatcher.

By country[edit]
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the English-speaking
world and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and
discuss the issue on the talk page. (July 2014)

Australia[edit]
The first CTC installation in Australia was commissioned in September 1957 on the Glen Waverley
line in suburban Melbourne. 6 miles (9.7 km) in length, the Victorian Railwaysinstalled it as a
prototype for the North East standard project.[5] CTC has since been widely deployed to major
interstate railway lines...

United States[edit]
CTC-controlled track is significantly more expensive to build than non-signalled track, due to the
electronics and failsafes required. CTC is generally implemented in high-traffic areas where the
reduced operating cost from increased traffic density and time savings outweigh the capital cost.
Most of BNSF Railway's and Union Pacific Railroad's track operates under CTC; the portions that
are generally lighter-traffic lines that are operated under Track Warrant Control (BNSF and UP)
or Direct Traffic Control (UP).
Recently the costs of CTC has fallen as new technologies such as microwave, satellite and rail
based data links have eliminated the need for wire pole lines or fiber optic links. These systems are
starting to be called train management systems.

New Zealand[edit]
CTC was first installed in New Zealand between Taumarunui and Okahukura on the North Island
Main Trunk in 1938 followed by Te Kuiti-Puketutu in 1939 and Tawa Flat-Paekakariki in 1940. CTC
was extended from Paekakariki to Paraparaumu in 1943 followed by Puketutu-Kopaki in 1945. CTC
was installed between Frankton Junction and Taumarunui from 1954 to 1957 as well as Te
Kauwhata-Amokura in 1954. CTC was then installed between Upper Hutt and Featherston in 1955
and between St Leonards andOamaru in stages from 1955 to 1959. CTC was completed
between Hamilton and Paekakariki on the NIMT on 12 December 1966. CTC was then installed
from Rolleston to Pukeuri Junction on the Main South Line in stages from 1969 to completion in
February 1980. The older CTC installation from St Leonards to Oamaru was replaced in stages
with Track Warrant Control in 1991 and 1992.

Suppliers[edit]

There are several companies offering individual components as well as turnkey systems that
comprise the elements of a CTC system. These suppliers include:

Complete systems[edit]

Alcatel

Alstom

Ansaldo STS

B&C Transit Inc.

Bombardier

DeltaRail Group Ltd

Eliop

GE Transportation

Indra

Invensys

Lockheed Martin Train Management System [6]

Modular Mining Systems

Railcomm

Railroad Signal international

Rochester Signal Inc.

Siemens AG

Thales Group

Union Switch & Signal

Wabtec - Optimised Train Control [7]

Control office equipment[edit]

ARINC

Condor Signal & Communications

Digital Concepts

Train Track Computer Systems

Field equipment[edit]

Safetran

Aldon Company, Inc.

See also[edit]

Advanced Train Control System (ATCS)

Direct traffic control (DTC)

Track Warrant Control (TWC)

References[edit]
1.

Jump up^ Lunden, Carsten S. (2000). "Protection of opposing trains when approaching
sidings." North American Signaling: Absolute Permissive Block. Accessed 2012-03-19.

2.

Jump up^ Lunden, Carsten S. (2000). "North American Signaling: Absolute Permissive
Block." Accessed 2012-03-19.

3.

Jump up^ General Railway Signal Co. "Elements of Railway Signaling." GRS pamphlet
#1979 (June 1979)

4.
5.

Jump up^ J.B. Calvert (1999). "Centralized Traffic Control."

Jump up^ Leo J. Harrigan (1962). Victorian Railways to '62. Public Relations and
Betterment Board. p. 176.

6.

Jump up^ Railway Gazette International December 2007 p751 (advert)

7.

Jump up^ Railway Gazette International December 2007 p747

External links[edit]

The Engineering Basics of CTC