Re: Victorian Interstate Corridors

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

Maurie Daly wrote:

>
>
> >Sim Street Jn (was Sth Dynon Junction)

No its still South Dynon Junction (officially) despite what people call it.

> to West Footscray Junction is a
> >vexatious bit of line with ARTC, VicTrack and FV all with an interest
> >in the track there.  One piece of idle speculation I've heard is that
> >FV will take over the down line and ARTC the Up line, each ripping out
> >the unwanted third rail.

I would think not at all. Its control is still from the one place West Tower. There is no reason why
ARTC and VicTrack could not agree regarding supervision, FV are merely buying track access. As for
ripping out the double line, just fanciful tongue in check stuff I would guess. It is a lengthy
crossing loop for trains of either gauge when you think about it. No use making the flexibility in
inner Melbourne any less than it already is.

> Thanks for this Yuri,the above concept ie converting the double dual guage
> track to 2 X single guage tracks actually makes sense,in that it does
> practically segregate the 2 networks as much as one could realistically hope
> for,and allows for the SG line to be increased to 60 kg/M rail on concrete.

Would be a disaster. The two single lines that is, not the 60kg rail on steel sleepers (better than
concrete).

> I guess the double dual guage track around from Totty Box to Brooklyn will be
> a vexatious one.

Its not a double dual gauge line just merely a dual gauge line. Double dual gauge line is what we
have between South Dynon Jcn to West Footscray Jcn. The problem of the track from Totty B to
Brooklyn is as before - no problem. Nothing wrong with shared responsibility.

> Would also be worth while converting Brooklyn to Newport to 1 X SG and 1 X BG
> both isolated in train control terms.

Except that there would have to be a crossing of both gauges somewhere. Spend a lot of money for NO
return. Shades of sg platform for Seymour thread.

>
> This also allows 60 kg/M rail from Brooklyn to Newport.
> Cant do much about the back road thru Newport though.

Yes you could, you could remove the bg bit. There are not that many bg goods trains that they could
not fit between the sparks through the platforms. But you still have to cross over the sg line to
get to the current West line to Brooklyn - and then share a line to Totty B. As I said before, a lot
of money wasted on little or no return.

>
>
> Any ideas  as to what happens to the BG line between Albion & Jacana.
> This was traditionally controlled by the NE SG controller.

Again why couldn't the ARTC controller in SA still control it for Vic Track. Why waste unnecessary
money on useless projects.

>
> Wouldnt make any sense to perpetuate this with ARTC.

Why not?

>
> Ive often wondered whether this odd arrangement has anything to do with the
> load limits on the Moonee Ponds Creek bridge, ie can we have two trains on
> this bridge at the same time, same problem as the Murray River bridge.

Never heard this one. There is no signalling controls for the Moonee Ponds Creek bridge similar to
the Murray River at Albury. The only signalling over the bridge is that required for the single line
automatic signals currently in existence.

David Langley.