Re: Ararat BG connections- Lets Standardise instead!

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

MarkBau1 wrote:

> <<<<<<So what was ASW then? just a figment of our imaginations??>>>>>>
>
> ASW was its original name, the name was later changed to SAS (or SAWS) later at
> Maurie Diggle's insistence I believe.
>
> Mark.
>
> Visit my train pic website at:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~markbau/

I am not defending the system. I think it is rather unsafe as the near miss at
Emu-St Arnaud area proved. The point that I was trying to make and I repeat it here
again is that an Alternative Safeworking System is the one we used before we got
the current system what ever it might be. Thus Electric Staff is an ALTERNATIVE to
Train Staff & Ticket.

Hence calling it ASW is not wrong as it is an alternative safeworking? system. But
surely it has a definitive name. It seems though that every branch of the railway
department used a different definitive name and thought that theirs was correct.

The sooner the system is either fixed or chucked out the better. If it was any
good, the worlds railways would be clamouring at Victoria's door to buy the system.
They don't appear to be.

The Train Order method as currently practised by ARTC - issuing orders to trains
enroute or at loops via radio has to be the most efficient system for the price.
Forget Mt. Christy, loco drivers are human beings and are subject to human failings
just like long distance bus drivers. The Tranzrail Track Warrant system is also a
very good system.

As for the sg line in the NE, you would be installing any crossovers into exisiting
platforms, all you would do is realign the sg main line through the existing
platforms. This would make access to the existing stations easier by removing the
sg line around the back of them and also straighten up the sg main line although we
do not go fast enough to worry about this.

David Langley.