Re: Gold Coast trams at standstill with long delays after system failure | Gold Coast Bulletin
From: Dudley Horscroft
Date:

Agree that the substations should continue autonomously providing power. But it is always possible that someone (H&SE?) ruled that
with loss of control the pant should shut down? Sounds like the sort of thing they would do.

Regards

Dudley Horscroft
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Geiermatthew@... [TramsDownUnder]" TramsDownUnder@...>
To: TramsDownUnder@...>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Gold Coast trams at standstill with long delays after system failure | Gold Coast Bulletin


>
>
> On 16/03/17 12:52, 'Dudley Horscroft'transitconsult@...
> [TramsDownUnder] wrote:
>> Richard, I don't know but I suggest that the communication failure was control of all the sub-stations. ISTR that all the
>> substations are controlled from the depot, and if there were a computer outage there, this could result in all the substations
>> automatically shutting down. Hence no power, no movement.
>>
> If that's the case, that's poor system design. The substation should
> just continue to perform it's task autonomously until a fault causes it
> to trip. The substation should not shut down because it's lost it's
> SCADA link.
> And this wouldn't be a design oversight, some one would have had to
> specifically put a loss of 'heart-beat' shut down function into the subs.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>

------------------------------------

------------------------------------


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links