With this privatisation lark, it is difficult for me to know who makes the infrastructure decisions - PT> or Metro? Perhaps Metro suggests/insists that this or that pointwork be removed and PT> has nobody with the nous to reach a commonsense decision.
When things go wrong, the ‘call in the buses’ solution seems to be happily embraced. But in peak times, where do they think all these idle buses are coming from? I wonder how often Bus Peter is robbed to pay Train Paul?
Regards,
On 16 May 2019, at 7:47 pm, espee8800 espee8800@...> wrote:
Of course Metro run the Government's suburban rail policy and to Metro, a point end is potential failure which costs them money in fines. When failures occur its "call out the buses" the non-existent buses that is. The trouble with this is that at the next election and you protest vote against the Labor party, you'll end up with a party that only wants to build more roads.
Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.
Just a few weeks ago when that power cable failed and trains were terminating at Caulfield, the Dandenong line only has one platform for trains to arrive in. If these trains use the same driver to return east then that's a delay of around five-six minutes per train; more because the general public today are totally untrained in boarding and alighting from trains in a timely manner. SO when there is a train every four to five minutes you can see that delays explode. That day my train ran into the queue of trains at Noble Park. Silly me didn't alight at Dandenong and catch a 901 to Ringwood. I did alight at Springvale and catch a 902 to Glen Waverley.
> On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 18:38, William Jackson apairofjacks@...> wrote:
> Robbie
>
> Sadly, flexibility is over-rated and over costed and thus doesn’t get a look in. The goal is to straight rail EVERYTHING and hope we have less problems.
>
> Under the guise of rationalisation the Flinders Street “ladder track” was booked out over three years ago, but still in place. Slowly but surely everything is getting pulled out, but then they go and surprise by putting in a new crossover at down end of Heidelberg.
>
> William – In a state of perplexion
>
>
>
>
>
> From:tramsdownunder@... [mailto:tramsdownunder@googlegroups..com] On Behalf Of Robbie Smith
> Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2019 3:44 PM
> To:tramsdownunder@...
> Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Caulfield Trackwork Diagram
>
>
>
> Neat. It's a shame that these diagrams are quite difficult to track down these days since the Signal Diagrams and Photos website shut down.
>
>
>
> Almost none of the Victorian railway manuals are available, which is in stark contrast to NSW, where almost everything except Train Order forms is published on the railsafe website. Both the Driver's Route Knowledge Diagrams and the WPPD publicly available on the railsafe website if you know where to look. I suspect though that NSW is an outlier in this regard, as Queensland doesn't publish much, nor do WA and SA (though signal diagrams for them can be found via sa-trackandsignal.net).
>
>
>
> Regarding the actual track layout, if it were up to me I'd relay it with a pair of crossovers just down of the junction on both branches, replace the single- and double- slip points with standard crossovers rated at 65 km/h, and configure all lines to be bidirectional. Signals CFD729 and CFD769 are largely redundant. Attached is a quick sketch; I couldn't be bothered to work out the correct dimensions though I imagine it would fit just fine. My modifications allow movements from any track to reach any platform, and vice-versa, maintaining maximum operational flexibility for a minimum of components. The three crossovers in red are possibly surplus to requirements, but they provide a bit of redundancy and avoid potential conflicts.
>
>
>
> (I'm aware that the crossovers on the Frankston branch would need to be curved, but that's a non-issue and Victoria's almost pathalogical avoidance of them is absurd. Again, if it works in Switzerland it would work here.)
>
>
>
> Robbie
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 19:24 +1000, 'Richard Youl' via TramsDownUnder wrote:
>
> The top portion is the city side of Caulfield station, the lower portion is the Dandenong and Frankston side.
>
> As there is trackwork to enable Dandenong trains access to and from the Frankston tracks, access also on the outer side of the station would be somewhat unnecessary.
>
> It’s funny what falls off the back of a truck sometimes.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email totramsdownunder+unsubscribe@....
> To post to this group, send email totramsdownunder@....
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/09e7e6dde092d12fab268e83e0acc19ffbe49a2c.camel%40gmail.com..
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email totramsdownunder+unsubscribe@....
> To post to this group, send email totramsdownunder@....
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/001601d50bc2%24b27d3a50%241777aef0%24%40optusnet.com.au.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
cheers and best wishes,
David in Avenel.au
[Before you change anything, learn why it is the way it is.]