Re: ARTC Communications Based Safeworking System

["Peter Dwyer" <peter.dwyer@qr.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!