Can you even imagine how relaxing it would be to have the same interface to your systems, every day, with all the parts in one physical location and never moving? Learn it once, then nothing changes for years and years, or if it does it's usually adding on, not replacing or re-arranging existing stuff? Man, that would be nice.
I've operated in boiler room offices at large plants for almost 40 years, the mimic panel is a very valuable tool. With miles of piping carrying water and steam for various reasons, the panels help keep it all straight in your mind.<p>These panels are in hospitals, chemical plants, data centers, Navy ships and subs and many other places similar to where I work. I can't imagine what it feels like to work in a nuke facility. I do work with some men who worked on subs, their training was astounding.
Here are some pictures of a General Railway Signal NX system board, for train dispatching.[1] This was the first intelligent user interface. From 1924.<p>Previous systems had "interlocking", to prevent collisions. Early systems had big levers and mechanical bars and blocks to prevent setting up conflicting routes. Signals had to be set to stop on all ways into a switch before you could throw the switch. Later systems added train detection, and you couldn't physically move the levers if a train was in the way.<p>But this just prevented errors. It didn't help with the job. NX (for eNtry eXit) was the next step. When a train was approaching an interlocking (a set of switches and tracks under one controller), lights on the board showed train presence. The dispatcher then pushed a button ahead of the train, indicating that they wanted to dispatch the train coming in on that track.<p>That's when the magic happened. Lights then lit up on all the tracks where it was possible to exit the interlocking. This took into account conflicting routes already set and trains already present. The system routed around conflicting traffic if possible. Only the reachable exits lit up.<p>Then the dispatcher would push one of the lit exit lights, and the system took over. All the un-selected exit lights went out. The selected route lit up and was locked in. Commands were sent out to the switches along the route to physically move the switches. Lights flashed on the board as the switches moved, and when contacts at the switch had verified that the switch was in the correct position and locked, the flashing stopped. Then, with all switches set and locked, the signals changed to allow the train to proceed.<p>As the train passed through, the track segments and switches behind it were released and could be used for other traffic. All automatically.<p>This system was so good there are still working installations, a century later.<p>[1] <a href="http://rrsignalpix.com/grsnx.html" rel="nofollow">http://rrsignalpix.com/grsnx.html</a>
I have posted this here before but I had the opportunity to live on Soviet/Russian icebreakers in the arctic for a period of time. Here's a small snippet of my photos, including of the control panels in the engine room and in the ship's bridge. Such an interesting perspective on utilitarianism:<p><a href="https://photos.app.goo.gl/CL6Rc4TE7ddZd4Xo7" rel="nofollow">https://photos.app.goo.gl/CL6Rc4TE7ddZd4Xo7</a>
Id love to know what Edward Tufte thinks of this sort of design. I get very strong small-multiples vibes from seeing all those needle-style meters, and I assume, given the stakes, that the Soviets applied some psychology and human information design principles to them. Or maybe they just hacked it together, who knows.
The biggest problem with the Soviet Union was Brezhnev not being able to keep with his economic reforms after 1974.
Seeing Russia nowadays it is sometimes hard to believe that once they were the second economy in the world, before being removed from this post by Japan.
Had they enacted Chinese style reforms they could have avoided the whole disastrous 90s
There is a Star Trek bridge vibe to those circular control rooms.<p>I wonder if there's a tradeoff point where if you have less than some number of people, the circular design is more optimal to enable communications between people and access to data.<p>At some point with more people (and more data) it becomes untenable to keep the circular design and you go more linear, such as the NASA mission control room.
Great find! Reminds me of this 2020 post:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23334339" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23334339</a><p><a href="https://designyoutrust.com/2018/01/vintage-beauty-soviet-control-rooms/" rel="nofollow">https://designyoutrust.com/2018/01/vintage-beauty-soviet-con...</a>
The most visually appealing part is the use of colours that you wouldn’t expect on an industrial control panel.<p>The first picture shows a shade of blue, as well as red and yellow symbols for whatever they might mean.<p>Also, approximately fifteen images down shows a switch control panel for a two-platform, triple-track Moscow Metro station (Полежаевская) that was intended to have a branch line, but mothballed due to future ridership projections.
Not Soviet per se... Londoners can visit Battersea Power Station Control Room B. It's a rather similar aesthetic. Just ask at the bar to have a look and they'll let you through a little gate.
Space ambiance! this is one topic that really interests me - how spaces create psychological states that are unique and satisfying.
there is a similar set of spaces - liminal spaces (google image search this term to see examples) - these are similar spaces - like corridors which have a unique feel.
It feels like I’m looking at a physical representation of my metrics dashboards.<p>I can only imagine the issue would be much harder to trace down if anything was off though.
We still have control rooms like this (I think in use) in Tasmania Australia. They sometimes have open days for our Hydro Power Plants, and they are some of the most interesting tours around. The one I visited was like using a time machine to travel back to the age of Art Deco. Obviously some more modern control systems have been added, but the Art Deco vibe is still there!
I worked at a fusion company and would have loved to be involved in the control room design. People generally aren't interested in designing rooms like this. People are happy with just big monitors at desks likely displaying hard to interact with interfaces that are ever changing. One engineer even wanted to install physical barriers to keep people away from stations.
Does anyone have any references to research or studies discussing the design and approach of control rooms? Research on human factors, human machine interfaces, and cognitive load? Fro example, I assume the airplane and astronaut industries have thought about this a lot.
They’re amazing. I can’t imagine the process to ensure all the metrics are correct. Seems like you’d have to check every single little dial for accuracy. Insane considering there’s hundreds.<p>I assume there was one of these rooms for every reactor too, crazy.
I agree it's really aesthetic (I love the circle arrangements with indicator lights occurring in several in them, I assume it's something reactor related). Are such control rooms still made today, or is it all digital screens?
Can we stop it with the soviet union nostalgia?<p>Considering that it's being used to fuel a russian imperialist invasion in eastern Europe, it leaves a bad taste.<p>No longer fun.