Re: ARTC Vic Train Control

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

In article <797vig$h08$7@news.mel.aone.net.au> dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage) writes:
>From: dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage)
>Subject: Re: ARTC Vic Train Control
>Date: 2 Feb 1999 22:52:00 GMT

>Maurie Daly (mauried@commslab.gov.au) wrote:
>> Yes correct, but that happens now .
>> Centrol is not a single train controller , it is a train control complex 
>> incorporating a number of train controllers,who all sit in separate rooms 
>> with  a bank of telephones and a train graph or a diagram on a 
>> illuminated board or a computer.
>> Where one controllers territory crosses anothers , which happens when trains 
>> have to cross controller boundaries , each controller seeks permission from 
>> his colleage to gain access for his train.

>But they still work for VicTrack and work in the same building.

Only partially true.
Currently the NE SG controllers and the Western SG controllers are employees 
of Victrack, but they work for ARTC(ie they take instruction from ARTC),as 
ARTC have contracted the function to Victrack.


Ideally it would be better if the BG and SG system could be entirely 
separated, but as they cant its logical for a line to be controlled by who 
ever is the primary user, ie whoever runs the most trains over the lines in 
question.


>In theory, ARTC could refuse a pathway because some other operator has
>paid a higher price for a clear pathway.

Quite true , its called market forces .

>I have a big problem with Tottenham - Brooklyn - Newport being under ARTC
>control. We've seen how bg trains often have to be diverted that way
>because of overhead problems or other blockages on the suburban lines.

Stiff, if theres a problem on the suburban lines then its a problem with the 
suburban operator, nothing to do with ARTC, or  trains under their control.

>With the line worked locally, there's no problem diverting via Brooklyn at
>zero notice. You just have to get the Staff from Newport "A" Box. With
>ARTC controlling the section, Centrol would have to contact Adelaide and
>probably PAY for a Train Order.

So what , again its market forces , if you want to run over some elses line 
you have to pay for it .

Theres every problem with working BG trains via Brooklyn with zero notice..
Are you suggesting that an UP SG freight heading for Melb should simply be 
stopped at Newport , because of a suburban holdup.

>Ditto local trip trains to Somerton, although bg isn't affected there.

>I'd rather see ARTC running Newport - Wolsely and Somerton Loop - Wodonga
>rather than all the way from Tottenham "B" Box.

And just how then would they (ARTC) be able to sell trains paths to Melb ,if 
they cant guarantee you a path into Melbourne.
If ARTC cant provide train paths into Melb as their territory ends at Newport
then every SG operator would have to negotiate track access rights with who 
ever controls the remaining few kms of track,and this will ultimately be 
whoever successfully buys Vline freight.
This operator could also be in theory an operator of SG freight trains as well
(eg if ASR were the successful tenderer) so you would end up with a conflict 
of interest problem.
This doesnt happen with ARTC as they dont run,and are 
never likely to run their own trains .

The current arrangement isnt by any means ideal,but its the price you have to 
pay for Horizontal Integration and privatization.

MD