Re: ARTC Vic Train Control

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

In article <36B82C12.28ECD9C8@bigfoot.com> Notagunzel <notagunzel@bigfoot.com> writes:
>From: Notagunzel <notagunzel@bigfoot.com>
>Subject: Re: ARTC Vic Train Control
>Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 21:59:30 +1100

>Phew!  After sorting thru all the threads generated (including the
>ubiquitous driver-in-exile vs GOD), have we got anywhere really?

Probably not.

Stuff deleted

>Radio System:
>If ARTC replaced the Vic Radio System with ARTC's version, that would
>simplify interstate operations at the expense of the non-interstate
>operations.  Until the day that a document is produced entitled "AS
>4292.412; Common Airgap Interface for Voice and Data Railway Radio
>Systems", and the equipment is available & works, the status quo might
>as well be maintained.  It doesn't need to reinvent the wheel, simply
>specify an existing standard, even one of the newish digital standards
>(e.g APCO25 or TETRA)

The interesting thing here is to consider exactly what the Radio System in a 
train is for.
It seems to me that over the years that Radios in trains have become a form of 
de facto safe working , ie you cant cross a border unless you a certain brand 
or type of radio in your loco, this even exists where its pretty obvious that 
the safe working isnt provided by the radios at all.
eg Vline ran the NE SG since its inception with both ES and CTC until around 
1980 without radios in the locos , then suddenly after they discovered that 
radiso were a good thing it became mandatory to have a radio, ie you couldnt 
run the train without one , (how did we manage for the last 15 years.)
Getting back to the original concept , in NSW where I live most of the country 
trains simply have one radio, tuned to 450.05 the ubiqitous channel that is 
used by everyone .
This channel is used by by drivers to talk to other drivers , to talk to 
control , to talk to signallers , ie just about everyone you need to talk to , 
and most surprisingly it works and works very well.
It would work a hell of a lot better if Freightcorp put better aerials on 
their locos.
The radios is use are in alot of cases quite old , and a lot of hand helds are 
used.
The SRA has been for years trying to implement a new trunked radio system , 
but it still isnt working , and one would really ask the obvious question , is 
it really needed outside the Metro Area.
Im not convinced that train radios need data capacity at all , if we junk the 
idiot safeworking systems like ASW and TO , then the safeworking itself isnt 
provided by the radio and all you then need is voice comms which can be 
provided quite simply.
Just about all Australia Rail Systems excepting NSW and bits of Victrak use 
frequencies in the range of 417 to 420 Mhz and Im not aware of any system 
actually using digital radios , ie digitising the voice .
I wouldnt take a great stretch of the imagination to harmonise all the systems 
so that they did what really they are needed to do , ie allow drivers to talk 
to who they need to talk to.
In the case of the Motorola system in VIC at least for ARTCs line all thats 
needed is to disable the data capability of the Base Stations and it will work 
as any other simple analog FM system that can be received on a non Motorola 
radio.


>Safeworking Systems
>Abolishing ES & SAW for TO?  CTC please.
Hear hear , if we are going to relay Gheringhap to Maroona with 60 kg/rail it 
will also be CWR so why not add the track ccts at the same time.

>Rules Harmonisation:
>My biggest problem is with continuing disparity between Rule regimes.  A
>hypothetical driver, who is a bit of a gunzel, may work for
>'AustraliaWide Trains'.  Now being based in Melbourne, this driver is
>required to be competent in Victrack rules.  For maximum flexibility,
>he(/she?) is required to work to both Adelaide and Sydney, thus he(/it?)
>has to be competent in both RAC rules for NSW, and ARTC rules for SA.
>If this gunzel driver is a steam nut, he might spend the odd day off
>firing NA's on the Tin Pot railway, thus needing ETRB rules, and just to
>round it off, he has been conned into working on the SGR, thus needing
>Victorian Tourist Railway Rules.   Hmmm, *5* separate rule regimes.
>AFAIK in the US, each railroad doesn't have its own rulebook, they only
>tweak the standard AAR rules.  Surely it can't be so hard.  Perhaps we
>could introduce a new Australian Standard Rule Book to celebrate the
>100th anniversary of the..... Australian Standard Rule Book! which was
>achieved in 190x. (Its True!, almost each of the govenment systems
>virtually standardised on a common book, which was based on the RCH book
>from the UK, but over the years each system's books drifted away from
>each other)

>BC

Yep the rules are the worst , even in areas where you could create harmony in 
about 5 minutes , eg the CTC rules for Pyrennees Loop to the border and from 
Wolsely to Keswick , the signals all display the same aspects , the intentions 
of both systems are the same , why on earth would you come up with differant 
sets of rules ? apart from total bloody mindedness.
Ive got a 3 page set of instructions for AN drivers if they ever have to 
shunt to the grain silos at Serviceton explaing in nauseous detail the vast 
differances between Vline and AN switchlocks, what utter crap.
A good start would be to at least harmonize the CTC rules for the sections of 
the SG line where very similar signalling aspects are used , eg
Northam to Kalgoorlie , Crystal - Brook to Keswick , Keswick to Wolseley, 
Wolseley to Pyreenees Loop and the NE SG to Albury.
It shouldnt take a signalling genius to come up with a common set of aspects 
and what they should mean .

MD