Re: NRC <> Brisbane to Sydney safeworking.

["David Proctor" <daproc.spambait@umpires.com>]

Richard Wardle wrote in message ...

>I can see that you were never an engineman ( I was for over 14 years). From
>my experience I personally would prefer the crew to have some electrical
>means of safety, I.e. C.T.C signalling or a physical staff then a piece of
>paper issued to you hoping that everything goes according to the plan and
>that the train controller or enginemen don't make a fatal error.


So how about a computerised system of train orders, so that the computer
will not allow an invalid order to be issued? I can see some problems with
this (in other peoples minds, anyway):

1. What if the computer stuffs up?

A. What if the interlocking at Broadmeadow allows an opposing movment into
the same section? We trust the system at the moment, why not expand on it to
provide train orders?

2. What if the order is misinterpreted?

A. What if a signal indication is misinterpreted? I know, how hard is it to
misinterpret a red light, but we see it on the roads every day, and to a
lesser extent on the railways. It DOES happen.

3. What if their is a communications breakdown, and the order cannot be
transmitted?

A. Same problem applies with CTC at the moment.

There is nothing wrong with train orders - just that the method of delivery
needs to be adjusted to the 21st Century - there is no reason we cannot have
a train controller inputting the instructions into a computer, the computer
then checking it for errors and, if proven to be valid, transmitting the
order to a printer in the loco cab (the driver then has a hard copy of the
order).

David "The Doctor" Proctor
daproc.spambait@umpires.com