Re: NRC <> Brisbane to Sydney safeworking.

[Eben Levy <tkid@ozemail.com.au>]

Richard Wardle wrote:

> 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.

What if the computer suffers a power out for a fraction of a second and resets.
it then boots up and issues an oerder for a train that is heading for the train
it issued an order to before it went down.

and computers do make errors. what if it gets a fualty byte in it's memory and
that corrupts the data been carried?

>
>
> >
> >David "The Doctor" Proctor
> >daproc.spambait@umpires.com
>
> Richard Wardle
>
> http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Network/1104/index.html
> >
> >



--
Bye for now,

Eben

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~tkid/

And one ring to rule ... err ... moderate them all!