Re: NRC <> Brisbane to Sydney safeworking.

["Richard Wardle" <ricdeb@netmedia.com.au>]

David Proctor wrote in message
<72m6n5$q79$1@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
>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?

<snip>

The system is suppost to be fail safe. If the computer stuffs up then the
signals are set to STOP. The driver can also be notified of the error by
radio. A descrete channel is not required in this circumstance as all in the
section can hear the broadcast and stop their trains before an accident can
occur.  Safety is the NO 1 prioity for an engineman.  It is instilled in him
from a trainee so the safety of his train is paramount.

>
>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.

<snip>

That is rare on the railways as the driver knows where the signals are
located and he knows how far they are away.  He can judge the speed of his
train and the time it will take to stop his train.  Misinterpretation is
usually due to other factors like fatigue, obstruction or lack of
maintenance of the signal itself eg. dirty lenses.

>
>3. What if their is a communications breakdown, and the order cannot be
>transmitted?
>
>A. Same problem applies with CTC at the moment.


If there is a communications breakdown at the moment the CTC system can
still carry on if the signalling system is not effected.  If the signalling
system is effected then they can bring the signals under local control so
the system can still operate by manning the signal boxes (like they have
done for the last 140 odd years).

>
>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).


I disagree there are a lot of safety issues to be addressed.  So it works
elsewhere.  What changes to their systems did they do to bring train orders
in.  My understanding is that the SRA wishes to keep the current
infrastructure and still bring in the working.  Computers don't make errors.
Programmers do.  If there is a bug in the computer program then it can have
fatal concequences.


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

Richard Wardle

http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Network/1104/index.html
>
>