Re: Interstate Platform at Geelong?

[mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)]

In article <01be8bbe$96ecc8e0$9f6760cb@pentium> "David" <valley123@xtra.co.nz> writes:
>From: "David" <valley123@xtra.co.nz>
>Subject: Re: Interstate Platform at Geelong?
>Date: 21 Apr 1999 05:30:05 GMT

>If there is such a large problem with trains stopping at Seymour, then an
>easy alternative would be to dual the platform closest to the platform at
>Seymour.
>All that is required is two sets of points, one stretch of line etc.
>This would be so much cheaper and stop all the problems.

>Anyone agree?

>David D


In theory yes , a simple solution.
>From a safeworking / signalling administrative perspective , an absolute 
nightmare.
Dual guaging the platform means a section of track in the middle of the 
Seymour Loop - Tall Loop section which is BG and could be occupied for long 
periods of time whilst the BG train is in the station.
The dual guage track would have to be operated as a SG / BG grade crossing 
with interlocking on the BG signals ultimately controlled from Adelaide .
Whilst all this can be done , Im sure ARTC wont want to pay for it , VF 
certainly wont as they dont get any benefit and Countrylink who would be the 
only possible beneficiary wouldnt either .
There is the potential for endless disputes , ie who pays if an NRC freighter 
is delayed by a late running Seymour pass which is sitting in the dual guage 
platform,when the freighter comes thru.

With totally separate operators running the SG and BG networks , having common 
bits is just a recipe for trouble.
If its absolutely necessary , then a better solution would be to rip up the BG 
track on the up platform and just make it SG, of course this wont suit the 
owner of VLP.

MD