|
Interesting post. Didn't really know much about how the UK did their level crossings. I'm a train control systems engineer (that does some pure signalling stuff occasionally too) down here in Victoria and we don't use those LIDAR or RADAR crossings. A lot of predictors generally (in areas that aren't surrounded by other signalling infrastructure), but they're starting to get ripped out now too because of track contamination issues. A lot of axle counter crossings going in in regional areas (which lead to all kinds of axle counter reset issues). The big focus in the Metro areas is on grade separations though. The state government has thrown a few billion at removing "the 50 worst level crossings" in Melbourne and that's where most of the work will be over the next three years (until major construction on a new cross city tunnel begins).
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
In regards to track contamination, particular grasses grow over the tracks to the point where they won't drop, and there are also areas where there are millipede breeding seasons (I kid you not) where millions of them go over the tracks, get smooshed into a paste which then stops tracks from dropping. In terms of axle counters, bored kids in the country have figured out how to make heads think there has been a count and drop level crossings.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
The option they've used so far is HVI track circuits in small doses. Not sure actually on the axle counters (like I said, I'm normally train control so I wasn't too involved with it), from memory though the Siemens axle counters are the only ones type approved currently by this ARO.
spamman fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Aug 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
V/Line
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
CrazyScot posted:If the distant lines are the Maryborough line then they are definitely Siemens. I don't actually work for them but rather work for one of those millions of firms that does stuff for V/Line. Although yeah, from what I've heard the Maryborough project basically killed Ansaldo's attempt to get into Victoria. The entire RRL line is also Siemens too. ACM100s or something. Not sure what they used on the Bairnsdale project though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Bozza posted:One of the big talking points going on at the moment is how to deal with failures (and SPADs) without it becoming a total job stopper as we switch from a fully interlocked signalling system which fails to a uselessly safe state to blokes on phones working via instruction to try and get stuff moving again - what is more risky? Are we talking about SPAD detection in a degraded state? What's the current idea for that? Are they using caution orders and on board cameras?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
Bozza posted:Nah, when a SPAD occurs the overrun detection that used to be hard coded into the interlockings would go into panic stations, dead locking points and sticking signals back to red with great abandon over great swathes of area which would lock up railway. Eg Paddington until the data purge at Christmas, if the SPAD detection is set off, you'll get all lines blocked with a total mess to try and manage. Wow, that's monstrous. Is the hard coding of SPADs into the interlocking data a feature of the interlocking that's used, or is it for compliance with local industry standards? I'm not sure I've ever seen that before, SPADs here are detected at a non vital level.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
CrazyScot posted:SPAD detection is a non-vital alarm yes. But SPAD protection is in the interlocking circuitry and is definitely vital. The most basic example is the overlap of a route. This is a vital level protection in case a train SPADs the signal. The overlap distance is calculated based on line speed and train braking distances and stops a SPADing train from ever coming into contact with another train route or SPADing train. We have a lot more protection levels which aren't as obvious and a bit more complex at the interlocking level (flank protection, swinging overlaps, approach locking etc etc) Yeah, I get that I've just never really heard it referred to as under the umbrella of SPAD protection (although it makes sense). The difference is which area you deal with (the old idea of if you've got a hammer everything looks like a nail). Having been train control for three years when I hear SPADs I think of detection, non vital alarms and operational responses, when I hear swinging overlaps, flank protection I tend towards route availability implications, when I come across overlap protection my first instinct is to think about route blocking etc. Just a part for the course for specialisation I suppose.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
Bozza posted:Double deck might help with capacity short term but unless you install more doors it's dreadful for throughput of trains at stations as the dwell times are now shite. That's the reason Sydney is moving away from them. Much better to get an extra couple of trains running per hour than carry a few extra people on one train. From memory during peak dwell times can get up close to two minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Having worked with both Smartlock and Westlock interfaces before, Smartlock is SSI and Westlock is ladder logic (but there are tools to convert SSI data).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
My guess is that either you're ripping out an SSI and replacing it with a Westlock/Westrace and you don't want to manually redo the data or you have a system that takes one as an input and you have data for the other.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
One of my current projects is replacing a hard control panel just like that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 14:15
|
|