Re: SLR - Extension construction

[matthew@mail.usyd.edu.au (Matthew Geier)]

In article <py1W4.49$AT5.2497@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>,
geoff dawson <geoffrey.dawson@aph.gov.au> wrote:
>If it was desired to extend the light rail to Summer Hill or Dulwich Hill
>(which I would advocate), would there be any physical or technical
>impediment to sharing the line with goods trains? Assuming that the
>frequency was such that paths for the goods trains could be found.
>

 I guess that is upto RSA and the rail safety unit in the NSW DOT. There would
be serious issues about the 'buffing' loads the Variotrams can take.
 Different countries appear to have taken different approaches. I think
Germany, they decided that since the Light Rail vehicals had superior
acceleration and stopping power, that they could probably avoid a
full on collision, thus they didn't require the buffing load capacity of
mainline stock.
 However in the US, they declared that unsafe, and that ALL rolling stock
had to have full main-line passenger grade impact strenght. This removes the
'light' but from 'Light Rail'!.
 In one US city they got an exemption on timetable grounds. During the day
LRVs run, at night when the LRV's are locked away freight trip trains run.

 Given the railways current woefull record in the signaling dept of late,
the DOT may not issue a wavier on impact strenght for the LRVs. I don't
think there would be much left of a variotram after it gets rear ended by
a 48 class with 10 loaded wheat hoppers. The trams have cab signaling and
ATC, but the freight-corp trip locomotives don't. I can't see Freight-Corp
taking kindly to having to put ATC on their trip locos, they would sooner
close Rozelle and hand the remaining traffic over to their road based
competition!.