It is a simple solution. You can't compare this to old world traversers. So the occasional freight car falls in. Its obviously a small risk compared to the advantages. I think its brilliant.What is the problem that requires this "simple solution"?
The use of turnouts would have required considerable additional space or shorter sidings.It is a simple solution. You can't compare this to old world traversers. So the occasional freight car falls in. Its obviously a small risk compared to the advantages. I think its brilliant.What is the problem that requires this "simple solution"?
Is there ANY advantage in this traverser over turnouts?
The use of turnouts would have required considerable additional space or shorter sidings.It is a simple solution. You can't compare this to old world traversers. So the occasional freight car falls in. Its obviously a small risk compared to the advantages. I think its brilliant.What is the problem that requires this "simple solution"?
Is there ANY advantage in this traverser over turnouts?
Ah, so they are critically short of space; thereby justifying the relatively complex traverserWhat is the problem that requires this "simple solution"?The use of turnouts would have required considerable additional space or shorter sidings.
Is there ANY advantage in this traverser over turnouts?
Currently the QUBE trains run with one loco at each end.
If they plan to continue this. a traverser is ideal for moving one loco from the arriving train to the departing train.
Peter
The problem can be overcome by providing a track on the far side of the traverser on the arrival roads.
The first loco is uncoupled and run ahead, the second loco is moved first.
The two locos end up in the same arrangement as they arrived.
Peter
It’ll be interesting to see how the traverser pays off when it suffers a failure and a part needs to go to Western Sydney for rebuilding or the lead time on a replacement component is six weeks out of Europe. It’s going to be a lot of extra shunting that’s for sure.
Keep it simple stupid as they say.
It's not simple compared to a set of points.Only an engineer would try to justify another engineers logic by further complicating the original idea Peter! Points for trying though.It is a simple solution. You can't compare this to old world traversers. So the occasional freight car falls in. Its obviously a small risk compared to the advantages. I think its brilliant.
There’s no turntable, there’s no road the other side of the traverser and there’s not going to be. So, with a traditional set of manual points how to do you run two locomotives around the train? You cut off, run clear of the points and go back the other way. Even with a road the other side of the traverser as described you’re still splitting locomotives, performing separate moves and reamalgamating them. In no ones eyes could that be seen as efficient other than by someone trying to save space on a plan.
Traversers have a place in the world. Workshops, confined flour mills etc. Not at the end of four 600 metre roads with incoming multiple unit combination on the head end.
It’ll be interesting to see how the traverser pays off when it suffers a failure and a part needs to go to Western Sydney for rebuilding or the lead time on a replacement component is six weeks out of Europe. It’s going to be a lot of extra shunting that’s for sure.
Keep it simple stupid as they say.
Subscribers: Beta4Me, fzr560, Jack Le Lievre
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.