Re: SAW/ASW - was Re: Computer Question - DTC

["Notagunzel" <notagunzel@bigfoot.com>]

Maurie Daly <mauried@commslab.gov.au> wrote in message
mauried.376.385337FD@commslab.gov.au">news:mauried.376.385337FD@commslab.gov.au...

> Further on re ASW , whats happened as a result of the Ararat accident.
> Since Glenbrook , this accident seems to have gone very quiet.

The word trackside is that you will probably find the enquiry will focus on
the premature operation of the down end points for the departure of the
Ballast by a 3rd person.  And the lack of security provided by the Annett
Lock.

> Is there any form of inquiry , and who is conducting it.

AFAIK the ATSB is involved, at the invitation of the Vic Govt.

> At the least, until such an inquiry concludes and exonerates ASW, if
indeed it
> will,then ARTC should in the interim cancel it and introduce an
alternative.
> Indeed, what is the alternative when ASW fails for any other reasons?

The suggestion that ASW should be "cancelled" is slightly bizarre, as what
is the alternative?  Manual Train Orders?  Hardly an improvement...

There are 2 ways of 'fallback' working if something is wrong with the ASW.
Electronic/Manual is when the LSDU on a particular loco dies, involving the
Office Computer generating the Authority, which is then transmitted by voice
to the driver, who takes it down on his Manual Authority form.  Full Manual
working is where the Office Computer dies, so all trains receive Manual
Authorities, generated by the Controller off his Paper Graph (which usually
doesn't exist on the controllers desk).  So you could say it sort of
devolves towards Train Order working in a way...

--
Mr Notagunzel.
Rail Transportation Connoisseur
notagunzel@bigfoot.com
(Regrets to announce there will be no further moves at
http://www.geocities.com/nota_gunzel
until further notice is issued from this office)