| Author |
Message |
Controller
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Sep 04, 2004
Last Visited: Aug 27, 2008
Location: Port Hedland W.A.
contact
|
post
|
|
|
 |
cootanee
Train Controller
Joined: Apr 28, 2006
Last Visited: Aug 26, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
nutbagg
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Feb 11, 2007
Last Visited: Aug 26, 2008
Location: In Willy Wonka's Chocolate Lake
contact
|
post
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:28 am
|
|
How do you find the trains then if there'e no GPS? I couldn't careless about aviation. Trains following each other at 110 and GPS dies....To bad if the resulting crash kills half the country side.
Mate, if that loco pulls as hard as you do, it'd move anything.
I'd still rather have an ALCo.
|
|
|
ShowMeTheMoney
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Jul 31, 2006
Last Visited: Aug 28, 2008
Location: dot AU
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:55 am
|
| nutbagg wrote: | | How do you find the trains then if there'e no GPS? I couldn't careless about aviation. Trains following each other at 110 and GPS dies....To bad if the resulting crash kills half the country side. |
In a nutshell, there are reporting safeguards built into all the systems. Authority for a following train to enter a section (from a specified location) is not able to be given until the rear of a preceding train has been reported clear of a specific point within (intermediate signal location) or at the end of the same section. So if the system goes down, a train can't enter a section. Also if the lights in a signal fails, it is a Stop signal!
|
|
|
cootanee
Train Controller
Joined: Apr 28, 2006
Last Visited: Aug 26, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
nutbagg
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Feb 11, 2007
Last Visited: Aug 26, 2008
Location: In Willy Wonka's Chocolate Lake
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:29 pm
|
| ShowMeTheMoney wrote: | | nutbagg wrote: | | How do you find the trains then if there'e no GPS? I couldn't careless about aviation. Trains following each other at 110 and GPS dies....To bad if the resulting crash kills half the country side. |
In a nutshell, there are reporting safeguards built into all the systems. Authority for a following train to enter a section (from a specified location) is not able to be given until the rear of a preceding train has been reported clear of a specific point within (intermediate signal location) or at the end of the same section. So if the system goes down, a train can't enter a section. Also if the lights in a signal fails, it is a Stop signal! |
ATMS= No signals.
Mate, if that loco pulls as hard as you do, it'd move anything.
I'd still rather have an ALCo.
|
|
|
nutbagg
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Feb 11, 2007
Last Visited: Aug 26, 2008
Location: In Willy Wonka's Chocolate Lake
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
cootanee
Train Controller
Joined: Apr 28, 2006
Last Visited: Aug 26, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
simonl
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Jan 05, 2006
Last Visited: Aug 3, 2008
Location: Sydney
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:06 am
|
| YM-Mundrabilla wrote: | GPS can do wonderful things, so they say, but my understanding is that it cannot tell (fail safe and with certainty) whether a train is on the mainline at a cross or in the loop.
This seems fairly fundamental to me. |
That's my understanding too. Perhaps just the loop track will be circuited. You still need to circuit the points, so why not? If this works in tandem with the GPS, you know which track you are on.
Doesn't solve the problem for double track sections though.
|
|
|
cootanee
Train Controller
Joined: Apr 28, 2006
Last Visited: Aug 26, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
nutbagg
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Feb 11, 2007
Last Visited: Aug 26, 2008
Location: In Willy Wonka's Chocolate Lake
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:28 am
|
Well I suppose it will depend on how many bells and whistles they are willing to pay for to incorporate in the system, I think we know it will probably be a minimalist system to save money. The system will be as you say an authority for a section will be sent to the train and stored on it until it is updated with new info. So if comms is lost you can only go as far as your current authority. If the system was smarter you could say the trains could talk to each other to monitor approaching/ following distances as a failsafe if the mainframe crashes but I feel it won't purely on a cost basis. What gets me is that if you look in the lastest issue of Catchpoint the articles states how it gets rid of all this lineside infrastructure but in reality they will only get rid of signals and pole lines (if still in use but alot is done by RF these days so its a moot point I believe) you still have loops (point motors, switchlocks) and level crossings that require equipment.
The article also states how there will be a huge increase in line capacity by enabling trains to follow each other, but how often does this happen? Most train controllers worth a pinch will 'space' their trains out to enable a system of crosses; not run packs of trains and burying trains for multiple crosses.
I think that it has a use for improving control on Train Order working but has a long way to go to replacing CTC yet.
Mate, if that loco pulls as hard as you do, it'd move anything.
I'd still rather have an ALCo.
|
|
|
cootanee
Train Controller
Joined: Apr 28, 2006
Last Visited: Aug 26, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
cootanee
Train Controller
Joined: Apr 28, 2006
Last Visited: Aug 26, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:40 am
|
Nothing happens quickly in rail… 
Flicking through an old Track & Signal (April 2005) found an article by then minister John Anderson announcing funding for ATMS.
Includes some diagrams of ATMS architecture and impact on wayside infrastructure.
|
|
|
|
|
