Re: Beresfield Accident Findings

[Bob <gioia@fastlink.com.au>]

Maurie Daly wrote:

> >Thank you for putting a balanced perspective on this.
>
> >The original point was that emergency applications USUALLY don't have any very
> >adverse consequences; nevertheless they can have such consequences, ranging
> >from skidded wheels through damaged drawgear through (in a worst-case
> >scenario) derailments. Thus granted that they CAN have adverse or very adverse
> >consequences, they are to be avoided wherever possible.
>
> >What some of us were trying to point out was that installing mechanical trips
> >on freight trains would (amongst other adverse outcomes) generate unnecessary
> >emergency applications which COULD have consequences comparable with the
> >problems which were sought to be solved in the first place. which is one of
> >several reasons why the rest of the world has generally not used mechanical
> >trips on freight trains.
>
> >Now that we have thrashed that subject to death, can we return to being more
> >constructive about what viable options - i.e. other than mechanical trips -
> >are available for automatic train control? The commonest systems around the
> >world seem to be either single-location type devices like British AWS, or
> >continuous transmission devices like most forms of cab-signalling where the
> >information is continuously contained in coded track circuits and the like
> >(with an immediate fail-safe provision that zero coding is interpreted as the
> >most restrictive indication).
>
> >These things are expensive but effective. They do however depend on fairly
> >traditional signalling principles (although some have progressive rather than
> >fixed blocks). Presumably the alleged advantage of GPS-based systems is mainly
> >that they will work without so much fixed hardware such as track circuits.
> >Unfortunately at the moment I am not aware of any such systems which are
> >actually operational in the railway signalling context.
>
> >I would be interested in appraisals of such alternatives, and especially as to
> >what advantages will accrue from GPS-type systems relative to more traditional
> >ones.
>
> >Eddie Oliver
>
> >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> >http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>
> As Eddie has pointed out , there are many alternatives that could be used
> other than trips.
> Unfortunately here we will see one of the major problems that beset Railways
> in this country compared to anywhere else , in that whatever system is chosen
> it will be a NSW unique system that wont be used anywhere else.
> Whilst modifying locos owned by Freightcorp that will run over the modified
> track will be an expense it will be nothing like the expense that will have to
> be met by any other operator that wants to or needs to run over the same
> tracks.

Ah yes! Now I see why we have been flooded with Private operators since the
deregulation of our rail system. It seems to me that any "little" operators will
never have a chance.Who will pay for their expensive Freightcorp radio system to be
installed? There is little doubt in my mind that the only players in this industry
will be the big boys. Maybe that's why Austrac are going to start running South
into Victoria where the rules are less strict and it is cheaper.
Bob