Re: ARTC Communications Based Safeworking System

["f.u.i.t.b.e.t" <fuitbet@yahoo.com.au>]

What do you think DICE is ?
"Peter Dwyer" <peter.dwyer@qr.com.au> wrote in message
952aeo$bd81@inetbws1.citec.com.au">news:952aeo$bd81@inetbws1.citec.com.au...
>
> Maurie Daly <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> 3a71f27e.1923946@can-news.tpg.com.au">news:3a71f27e.1923946@can-news.tpg.com.au...
>
>
> > Its phrases like this one that really are amazing.
> >
> >Overview: The nature of the Australian rail network is such that
> >there are economies in placing equipment on trains wherever
> >possible rather than trackside. ARTC has therefore commenced a
> >process of consultation with interstate operators to understand the
> >opportunities and constraints that may affect them.
> > ------------------------------------------------
>
> > The above is code for
> > "We would much rather see most of the infrastructure needed being
> > installed in the locomotives rather than trackside.
> >
> > This of course means that the poor struggling rail operator has to
> > pick up a considerable part of the costs of ARTCs new scheme.
> >
> > We already have far more incompatible requirements now for radios /
> > VDUs etc in locomotives .
> > The last thing rail operators now need is yet another unique loco
> > based safeworking system.
>
> I hate to break this to you. The considered future of ALL railway
signalling
> is
> considered to be in-cab signalling.
>
> Transmission based signalling systems will, in the far flung future,
> transmit
> the permissable line speed to the driver, and the only thing left
trackside
> will be points machines.
>
> What the ARTC are trying to do has already been done, for the application
> they
> want.
>
> Seeya!
>
>
>
>