New ARTC signalling system trial

Controller · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:03 pm

cootanee · Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:31 am

nutbagg · 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 · Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:55 am

cootanee · Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:58 pm

nutbagg · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:29 pm

nutbagg · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:39 pm

cootanee · Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:51 am

simonl · Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:06 am

cootanee · Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:25 am

nutbagg · 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 · Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:07 am

cootanee · Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:40 am

Nothing happens quickly in rail… Laughing

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.

cootanee · Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:36 am

ATMS discussed in Senate committee...

"Mr Marchant—There are three elements, one of which is that one of the great impediments to those shorthaul small trains is in fact the access charge because of the signal distances. Again, you are running a factory,
you have got 20 kilometres between signals or 10 kilometres between signals and one thing takes 600 metres up and the other kilometres are empty, that is a very sunken large investment and not very optimised.

One of the ways of solving that is to actually move railways away from being controlled by signals. As you are probably aware, we are in a joint venture with Lockheed Martin and Lloyds Register reviewing a thing called
an Advanced Train Management System which effectively is about controlling trains from a train control centre into the cabin of the train and tracking it both with GPS and gyros with back-up safety systems and
actually therefore bringing the distance between trains to be a safe distance between trains plus braking distance—that is, getting rid of signals on the ground and dealing with distances between trains and their
braking distances.
The additional benefit of that is if trains get too close to each other, the control system and the controls can switch the train off; it can stop it. So if the driver was killed or injured or had a heart attack, we could
intervene and take control of the train and the system would overload. The extra benefit of that is you are no longer captured by the distance between signals; you are now dealing with the distance between trains. It
would not matter whether a train was 600 metres, 300 metres or two kilometres, the next train behind it would be behind by the safe distance, plus braking distance; therefore, you could have a whole range of different types of units of activity running along the railway line, not being impeded by the distance between signals."

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S11354.pdf

sthyer · Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:54 am

In terms of broken rails, it should be noted that the RFR lines in Vic rely largely on axle counters, rather than track circuiting. Thus there is no broken rail protection. So many new systems involve one step backwards, it's just a question of do they involve two or more steps forwards?

In a perfect world, you create high traffic densities with CTC and lots of signals. The real worls isn't going to be able to afford signals every 10km across the Nullabor.

Hanlon's Razor - Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity