Re: ARTC Vic Train Control

[gonoNOCRAP@bigpond.com.au]

On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 22:22:55 GMT, mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)
wrote:

>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
I'm not going to clip any of the previous messages just remember that
the reason that radio was introduced in Victoria was on the orders of
the Coroner after the Barnawatha smash hence the reason a train cannot
operate in Victoria without an operating train to base radio is to
prevent the death of employees as a Vic engine man i cannot believe
how i can run from Junee to albury with no communication to the
controller at all i still have a problem with no communications the
beauty of the train to base system even though it is a little outdated
is that it is a private conversation between you and the controller
and it has an emergency call feature as well as a fleet call feature
IMHO it is far superior than no radio as i can vouch for this as I had
a head on with a drunk in a car at Gerogery and had to use my own
personal mobile phone this is CRAP in 1999!!!
regards Paul Johnston (NRC MELB)