Cause has been identified as an overnight software upgrade. All daily timetable data was corrupted causing train control and passenger information problems.Correct me if I'm wrong, but computers have been in general usage for decades. If an up-grade turns out to be an up-stuff (as the army would call it), the imbeciles concerned need their spines kicked upwards through their hats.
Cause has been identified as an overnight software upgrade. All daily timetable data was corrupted causing train control and passenger information problems.Sounds like somebody didn't do a test of the upgrade process first (and if they did, then their test system does not properly reflect the production system).
Software upgrade is done by the system supplier, who do the necessary tests within their own testing unit. Therefore when it is uploaded to the actual system, it supposedly will work as intended.
However, if there is a problem, and that problem is detected early enough , then the just superseded software can be reloaded.
In the event that the problem is not detected early ( the problem may only exist well into the 24 hour cycle ) then you have the problem.
Daniel Bowen has observed that despite spillover into the Burnley group caused by Clifton Hill trains using 2/3 at Flinders St, the disruption remained relatively isolated from the Northern, Caulfield and Cross-City lines. Sectorisation is having some impacts and they are good.A clear example of our bad network. Track faults that caused problem for other groups because of the flow of trains being 0 per hour
Is 'Track Faults' really spin (lies) for what are really 'Signal Faults'?Thing is they often use "signal fault" too so a distinction is being made somewhere. Point machine failure perhaps?
I don't know how the general public interpret these two problems but all would know the difference between the track and the signals.
The track has been there for donkeys years whilst the signalling that fails is often/usually a relatively recent so called 'improvement'. How often does the 'classic' signalling fail?
As we don't worry about missing dogspikes, broken sleepers, mud holes, track line and top etc what actually does constitute a 'track fault' in Victoria?
Look on the bright side - Metro's making lovely lots of money, so at least some people are happy. You wouldn't want to upset them by making them spend it on maintenance, would you?The way the Metro contracts are set up is based on meeting the intervention levels set by safety standards (sighting track). A safe standard is the minimum to keep trains on tracks (mostly I might add, they are not perfect and never will be) and is also high cost. The 'least cost' standard of infrastructure is an entirely different thing all together. At the moment we have the ludicrous situation where Metro are rewarded for providing the maintenance to the standard that is the highest cost to provide (both in repair, quality and life expectancy). You can sight Metro for their profiteering all you like, however they are reacting to the environment that they are allowed to operate in. The responsibility remains with the client - the state of Victoria.