Re: Today (Sat) on 22 plat. Central

[signal_spotter@my-deja.com]

In article <39dc2715$0$11625$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>,
  "Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>
> <signal_spotter@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> 8rgnan$2qa$1@nnrp1.deja.com">news:8rgnan$2qa$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > > I don't think they're necessary. The only way you could hit the
train
> > in front after tripping on the intermediate or following trip
> > > is on purpose - which intermediate trips won't prevent.
> >
> > You've just given the answer to the reason for ITS's. They are
designed
> > to prevent you from hitting a train, on purpose or accidently, when
you
> > have a reduced overlap because of a train ahead. And the only way
you
> > could hit that train would be to pass the ITS at the correct speed
then
> > accelerate and then trip the trainstop at the signal at a higher
speed.
> > This would mean that you're stopping distance would be longer. Now
if
> > you want to drive with a death wish then let me know what trains you
> > drive so I never travel on them :-)
> > >
> > > This is the real reason they're put in, to bunch trains up.
> >
> > Exactly. So are you saying that they're still unnecessary. Do you
think
> > that trains shouldn't be bunched up. Is that what you're implying by
> > saying that the aforementioned examples of intermediates are
unecessary?
>
> I'm *still* saying I think they're unnecessary.
>
>
But you haven't given a reason why you think they're unnecessary.
You've just come out with a opinionated statement. I'm interested in
hearing why you think they're unnecessary.

regards Ian
Signal Design Engineer


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