Re: Signalling in Victoria

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

Eddie Oliver wrote:

>
>
> > Your defintion of route signalling would be a little confusing in Victoria due
> > to the existence of quite a few 3 pos. signals which do tell you exactly which
> > route you are taking by means of a route indicator.
>
> Indeed, so Victoria is nowadays effectively route-signalled in a few
> places, e.g. parts of North Melbourne and entries into the underground
> at Richmond Junction. It is a classic case of hybridisation, and since
> they seem to be installing progressively more route indicators, they
> seem to have decided that the route information is worthwhile having.

Victoria has provided some route indicators to compliment its 3 position signalling
system in order that serious delays to traffic can be avoided. One might even say
that it has been done in later years as the reliability of signalling and running
staff has dropped off. Wrong routes are being set more often and maybe it has to do
with wrong info about the next train, something to do with modern communications.

The junctions you mention at North Melbourne are out of sight of the home signals and
the junction signals for the underground are probably fitted because of the longer
braking distance requirement of loco hauled country trains sharing the suburban
tracks.

One of the first illuminated route indicators that I can remember was at Richmond.
After four tracks were opened between Richmond and Burnley and there was still only
two back to Jolimont Junction (as it was known then), the home protecting the
junction points to the Burnley Local and Through lines (plats 9 and 10 at Richmond)
only displayed medium speed proceed aspects, and the points were just out of sight
over a little rise. This indicator was worth the trouble because if a Glen Waverley
train was put down the Through line, then to Camberwell it went. A Box Hill train
down the Local line was OK because of the crossover at Burnley.

David Langley.