Re: Interstate Platform at Geelong?

[David Langley <del@ancc.com.au>]

Maurie Daly wrote:

> 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.

Not a nightmare, just an expensive solution. And who would pay as you note below?

>
> 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.

BG trains are only in the platform for about 2-5 minutes at a time. They stop longer on
the other side. Unfortunately they are often delayed by passing SG traffic.

>
> 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.

When I first read the posting from David D I thought he meant a single dual gauge line but
if you created a short crossing loop type situation then no problem. Except for who pays?
The existing platform could easily be extended at far cheaper cost than all the above
except that no one seems interested except this newsgroup. VLP aren't because they have
nothing to do with the sg passes these days and don't want to co-operate with CountryLink.
CountryLink won't because it probably doesn't want to stop there anyway. The old story
will have it that because there is no one waiting for the XPT there is no demand.

>
>
> 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.

Yeah that would foul up the bg passes and also the Wodonga bg goods trains which cross
there, or at least they used to.

David.

>
>
> MD