Re: Safety first in rail system's radical revamp

[pdwyer@my-deja.com]

In article <8un5q8$hf8$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  signal_spotter@my-deja.com wrote:
> > The ATP system employed by QR is what I'd consider only suitable for
> > where it is employed. Inter City freight, not an urban rail system.
> >
> > Why?
> Because an ATP system is at it's best when it's incorporated into the
> entire system. Not in dribs and drabs. And that's where the cost rises
> compared to trainstops or TPWS.

But there's a difference in traffic and signalling density between
Urban and Rural rail operations.

Given the large number of signals installed in the average urban area,
what would be the cost of installing the Westect ATP as against a
gradula implentation of TPWS? Where you reduce costs by only installing
TPWS on those signals with the greatest risk?

Coming from an AWS background, the TPWS is just an extension. The
Westinghouse ATP system is a complete replacement, necessitating a
change in on cab equipment. I don't think most Australian EMU's were
designed with the space for the on board unit.

and the Ericab is no solution either, for most of the same reasons as
the Westect.

Seeya!


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.