[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NRC <> Brisbane to Sydney safeworking.
Eben Levy wrote in message <364FDEB9.40B7E0C9@ozemail.com.au>...
>Richard Wardle wrote:
>> David Proctor wrote in message
>> >Richard Wardle wrote in message ...
>> >>I can see that you were never an engineman ( I was for over 14 years).
>> >>my experience I personally would prefer the crew to have some
>> >>means of safety, I.e. C.T.C signalling or a physical staff then a piece
>> >>paper issued to you hoping that everything goes according to the plan
>> >>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
>> >this (in other peoples minds, anyway):
>> >1. What if the computer stuffs up?
>> >A. What if the interlocking at Broadmeadow allows an opposing movment
>> >the same section? We trust the system at the moment, why not expand on
>> >provide train orders?
>> 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
>> section can hear the broadcast and stop their trains before an accident
>> occur. Safety is the NO 1 prioity for an engineman. It is instilled in
>> 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
>> >misinterpret a red light, but we see it on the roads every day, and to a
>> >lesser extent on the railways. It DOES happen.
>> 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
>> 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
>> >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
>> 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
>> >needs to be adjusted to the 21st Century - there is no reason we cannot
>> >a train controller inputting the instructions into a computer, the
>> >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
>> 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
>> in. My understanding is that the SRA wishes to keep the current
>> infrastructure and still bring in the working. Computers don't make
>> Programmers do. If there is a bug in the computer program then it can
>> fatal concequences.
>What if the computer suffers a power out for a fraction of a second and
>it then boots up and issues an oerder for a train that is heading for the
>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
>that corrupts the data been carried?
If the computer has a piece of corrupted data it will fail; that is crash
like yours does when it has a fault.
>> >David "The Doctor" Proctor
>> Richard Wardle
>Bye for now,
>And one ring to rule ... err ... moderate them all!