On 12/12/18 10:35 am, Prescott wrote:
>

> But from what heights the third generation has fallen. It's a pretty damning indictment of the IWLR design and operation that it has the poorest on-time running percentage, for a mode that's being promoted by TfNSW as more reliable than buses. SIngle track stub at Dulwich Hill thwarting recovery time, too few doors on the trams, lackadaisical operation by Transdev. Yet entirely on its own grade-separated ROW or in its own exclusive lanes. It can really be done much better than this. Seeing photos yesterday of the multiple obsessively-micromanaged speed limit signs along CSELR doesn't give much hope that things will improve - and considering that it will still be operated by Transdev.

I don't think we can blame Transdev for this - I don't think they set the speed limits or even the overall operational parameters - that will be coming from TfNSW.

Transdev/CAF are responsible for the TSR though the points (which are not very temporary are they :-) due to excessive wheel wear, but the slow station approach speeds, speed signs every 50m and of course not specifying enough doors is all TfNSW.

Of course tram and train drivers are not trusted to show any judgment anymore. TfNSW has just signed a $16 million contract with Network Rail Consulting to be systems integrator for a ETCS Level 2 roll-out - with ATO mentioned as a 'feature'.

https://www.railexpress.com.au/sydney-trains-digital-integration-deal-signed/

The next generation train protection project to replace the electro-mechanical train stops has suffered serious feature creep. Originally they were going to use ETCS Level 1 limited supervision to replace the mechanical train stops with a balise - get rid of the moving parts, make it more reliable. It's now morphed into an automatic train operation project. (That doubtless will be many times more complex and run over time and budget)