Where did the idea of controlling 2 airports simultaneously come from? Several people seem concerned about that, and rightly so if it were to happen, which I'm sure will be on some office dweller's mind. At the moment though, the economies of scale for staffing in a single location rather than multiple isolated locations seems to be the driver, which also seems logical.
As for making it more difficult for an airport to change service provider, surely just feed data to a different location. A possible issue in conversion training if current provider is operating remote towers from single location as there are not necessarily any controllers with a vested life in the local area who may want to stay around, so a bit of a tougher negotiation on validation training pre or post handover, but otherwise can't see the issue.
Obviously, from a controller's perspective, it will doubtless end in a race to the bottom of the wages ladder, and the stereotypical "Bangalore call centre" option appearing on some bean counter's list...

https://youtu.be/C1vza1BqgbQ
According to that video they have already simulated 'multiple remote tower operations' by controlling a real tower remotely at the same time as a simulated tower using split screen.

How does visual separation work when you are working remotely?

I am thinking about VFR helicopter crossings, also CAT A police helicopters that are frequently crossed ahead of IFR inbounds using the mark one eye ball.

Plus all,the other stuff which is done to keep,the movement rate high, wheels up departures, using the combination of the speed group table, SID routing and visual separation.

It's called a VCR for a reason.

As I understand it you still used reduced separation in the vicinity with remote towers. You are still "visual" after all, it's just presented on a screen rather than out the window

Screen separation? One on one screen, one on another? Or maybe you draw a vertical line that appears on the visual display; one stays left, one stays right, they're visually separated?

That has been talked about, I believe, but in simpler terms keeping aircraft from "merging" just like out of the window seems sensible (rather like radar blips)...

Human depth perception is only effective over a few hundred metres, I believe. This is less than the distance from most control towers to the runway.
In the cases where reduced separation in the vicinity is applied these distances are almost certain to be greater than that so it makes no difference whether you are looking out of a window or looking at a screen depicting the view out of the window.

As for "wheels up" you will still see "wheels up" regardless of whether it's out of the window or via a screen.

I've heard 'screen separation' has been looked at for visual separation.

It's interesting to note that the 2 NATS articles on their website which trumpet this technology are 'Digital Towers Land In The U.K,' and 'The Rise Of The Digital Tower'.
It's obvious that neither of these statements can actually be true.

What is also interesting is that, back in the 1980s, Compact Disc/Digital Audio was trumpeted as the future of music......I remember seeing it on 'Tomorrow's World', Judith Hann, or Michael Rodd telling us all about it.
Still have my CDs, and enjoy them, but it's amazing how many vinyl LPs I saw when I was out shopping this morning...........And that was just in our local Sainsbury's.

I believe KODAK have re-introduced Ektachrome 100, too.

Funny old world.

Yes, sure, you can still use film cameras, record players and even ride a horse and carriage or a steam train. There's always room for the niche, for those who partake for the fun of it.

Sadly for those who would like the status quo to remain, where it results being cheaper and/or more profitable to use new technology, That technology generally comes into use.

The vast majority of music consumers now use streaming services or purchase music online. The fact that you can still go into town and find a rare record shop and buy an LP doesn't mean that the music industry is going to abandon online sales or CDs.

Just as I'm sure in 30 years you would be able to visit the tower at Duxford and still find paper strips, a telephone or two and a few dedicated folks manning the radio.

Can you remember 'Simmonds digital drum-kits, Gonzo.........

They "were the future", once.

"Cheaper and more profitable".........as opposed to "Safe, orderly, and expeditious"?

Showing you age Zooker....the objectives are now:
(1) prevent collisions between aircraft;
(2) prevent collisions between aircraft on the manoeuvring area and obstructions on that area;
(3) expedite and maintain an orderly flow of air traffic;
(4) provide advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights;
(5) notify appropriate organisations regarding aircraft in need of search and rescue aid, and assist such organisations as required.

It's not too far from ye olde speake and if you can still achieve them whilst being cheaper and more profitable (or even managing to keep/extend existing ATC contracts) then so be it.
Cost of ATC services, whether we like it or not, is "a driver"...especially to airport customers, their boards, their shareholders. The simple fact is that everyone wants more for less, from passengers to airport authorities.
Change isn't always bad, neither are technological advances.

Keep/extend contracts, good egg?

Like EGBB, England's second city?

Like EGKK, England's, and possibly, The World's busiest single-runway airport?

Like EGPH, The airport serving Scotland's Capital City?

WHOOPS !!

All the churning of contracts is probably good for atcos, more competition more money, and there is a shortage of controllers. Also the loss of contracts breaks up the benefit of remote towers being brought together under one roof.

"and there is a shortage of controllers"

Good Heavens.......How did that happen?

And why do you think those contracts were lost Zooker?
Cost perhaps??
That's the point. Do the same service for less, or make a huge saving for the airport customer on building a new tower/maintaining a crumbling old one.

(Although digital towers don't have to be in a centre, of course...depends what the customer wants/needs.)

I'm not so sure how good contract churn is for ATCOs in the long-term. The new ANSP will generally need to reduce costs so it's hardly surprising when you see them advertising for ab initio ATCOs, offering lower pay and poorer pensions too no doubt.

I'd rather my employer kept me employed on same Ts & Cs by finding other ways (like digital towers) to save the customer money. It won't suit every contract I'm sure, but it's worth showing what you can do.

Ehm... that happened in Nats nearly 10 years ago.. when current employees at the time voted in favour of much lower pay conditions and a change in pensions and T&Cs for the new starters.
It was the existing staff that voted for that, it wasn't forced upon them by a new ANSP!

#selectivememory

ATC Watcher - Where is this announced by ICAO?

Thanks.

Yes, by their Rep (a nice lady) during a public debate in Madrid ( CANSO WAC ) on Remote towers last week.