Thread View: uk.railway
10 messages
10 total messages
Started by Les Brown
Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:51
Fast train safety called 'B-class'
Author: Les Brown
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:51
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:51
145 lines
7645 bytes
7645 bytes
From: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/06/10/1118347597254.html Fast train safety called 'B-class' By Ewan Hannan and Richard Baker June 11, 2005 Safety experts have called the State Government's new safety system for the $750 million regional fast train project a "B-class" stopgap solution. Britain's main safety authority has warned that the system, which is used in the UK, is of limited value when trains are travelling above 130 km/h, 30 km/h slower than Victoria's fast trains. Just weeks before the Government announced $44 million for the new system, the European Commission criticised it as a "B-class system", wrongly promoted as a "cheap and easy" solution to rail safety. The Age has also obtained documents through Freedom of Information that show construction on the project is running up to 20 months behind the Government's original schedule. Contractors have missed both original and revised completion dates, with fast trains now not due to run before the middle of next year. Contractors said the project has been delayed by the Government's decision to install the British-based safety system, known as Train Protection and Warning System, on trains using the proposed fast rail routes to Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo and the Latrobe Valley. Documents reveal that the Government bought the system in early 2004 without a full safety assessment. The decision to install the $44 million system caused havoc with the signalling designs for the fast rail network, resulting in delays and cost blow-outs. "As reported last month, serious potential delay issues have now been identified associated with signal design and installation," an April 2004 Government report on the project states. Bill Wild, the managing director of the John Holland Group, which is upgrading the Bendigo and Latrobe lines, told The Age that implementing the safety system was causing delays. "There was a substantial change so that part is significantly delayed but the other parts of the job are going well," he said. Transport Minister Peter Batchelor said the decision to install the system was made by Victoria's public transport safety regulator, Graham Edkins, following an inquiry into the January 2003 Waterfall train crash in NSW, which killed seven people. Mr Edkins refused to be interviewed by The Age. Mr Batchelor acknowledged last December that the safety system would be more expensive, but said it was essential "we have the safest system" available. But the head of the Waterfall inquiry, Peter McInerney, recommended that a more efficient system than TPWS be installed in NSW. He said the better system would allow trains to be spaced on a network at safe distances. "This allows for a more efficient use of the available infrastructure, while ensuring high levels of safety. This type of technology is currently being used in Perth. It is the type of technology that should be used for reasons of both safety and efficiency on the NSW network." The Victorian Government has defended its purchase of the system, saying the safety regulator had accepted "independent international expert analysis" that found TPWS was the best. It is designed to stop trains running through red signals, reducing the risk of collision and derailment. Loops placed at danger points calculated the train's speed, and if the train was going too fast the brakes were automatically activated. Originally, the system was to be installed only on the new V/Locity trains - those capable of 160 km/h. But it will now be extended to all trains on the four upgraded lines. The Government insists the costs will not blow out, but in Britain the cost has risen from an initial �150 million ($365 million) to �585 million. British Health and Safety Commission chairman Bill Callaghan said the system was limited when trains went over 130 km/h. He said an enhanced system, known as "TPWS+" was still only a "stopgap solution". Just last month, Britain's train driver union, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, said the safety system was not always adequate in responding. This recent criticism followed a British rail safety inquiry in 2001 that found TPWS had "significant shortcomings". "Its limitations have become more apparent as its cost has escalated. We doubt it would have been adopted had both these factors been known more reliably at the outset," the inquiry's co-chairmen, Professor John Uff and Lord Cullen, wrote. "The effectiveness of TPWS is least where the risk is greatest: on high-speed trains with braking capability well below the optimum. The real concern of the public lies in the possibility of further catastrophic accidents. TPWS will not remove that concern." In 2002, former British Rail operations manager Peter Rayner described TPWS as old technology that had the potential to make safety on British railways even worse. He said TPWS was responsible for many train delays. Mr Batchelor last December said $44 million of a $133 million blow-out on the project was due to the expansion of the safety system to all trains using fast rail lines. Mr Batchelor insisted yesterday that much of the criticism of the TPWS referred to earlier versions. "We expanded our original TPWS system to include its application at more high-risk locations or circumstances," he said, adding the system had been adapted to suit Australian conditions. "We've had identified for us by the safety regulator the high-risk issues for trains . . . such as going through a red light, or where the driver is incapacitated or goes too fast around sharp curves, or too fast into junctions or turnouts," he said. "These are the areas where you need an additional level of external safety protection, and that's what it's designed to provide." Opposition transport spokesman Terry Mulder said "obviously the safety system was purchased without a thorough investigation" of its capabilities. "Peter Batchelor will be crossing his fingers and hoping it works - and that will give no confidence at all to commuters who are going to be travelling on those four lines," he said. Mr Batchelor said he believed the $750 million forecast budget would be adequate, and fast trains would be running from the middle of next year. ********************************************************************************* Comments anyone? Les Brown
Re: Fast train safety called 'B-class'
Author: Chris Brownbill
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 12:39
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 12:39
21 lines
1525 bytes
1525 bytes
Les Brown wrote: > From: > > http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/06/10/1118347597254.html > > Fast train safety called 'B-class' > By Ewan Hannan and Richard Baker > June 11, 2005 > > > Comments anyone? > > Les Brown The Age are being naughty boys here. Either that or just very lazy. The arricle is full of factual errors and unchallenged assertions - journalism 101 really. A sad example of the state to which a once fine newspaper has slipped.
Re: Fast train safety called 'B-class'
Author: David Hansen
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:47
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:47
63 lines
3695 bytes
3695 bytes
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:51:39 GMT someone who may be Les Brown <gunzel51@hotmail.com> quoted this:- >http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/06/10/1118347597254.html >Documents reveal that the Government bought the system in early 2004 without >a full safety assessment. I doubt if the behaviour of trains in Australia is that different to trains in the UK. It is largely a matter of engineering/physics. The strengths and weaknesses of TPWS were well known in 2004. http://www.hse.gov.uk/railways/liveissues/tps.htm is a good comparison of TPWS with a better system and there are a number of links from there to more information. >He said the better system would allow trains to be spaced on a network at >safe distances. That sounds like moving block. Very good, but very expensive and only used in a few places. >The Government insists the costs will not blow out, but in Britain the cost >has risen from an initial �150 million ($365 million) to �585 million. Cost has risen because a number of enhancements were considered desirable. Personally I don't think some of them are desirable, but that is a matter of personal prejudice. >This recent criticism followed a British rail safety inquiry in 2001 that >found TPWS had "significant shortcomings". Since then, although not perfect, TPWS has been demonstrated to be rather better than originally thought in a number of ways. It has already prevented crashes, while the perfect system remains a dream. >"The effectiveness of TPWS is least where the risk is greatest: on >high-speed trains with braking capability well below the optimum. The real >concern of the public lies in the possibility of further catastrophic >accidents. TPWS will not remove that concern." ICBW, but I am not aware that there has yet been a crash in the UK which TPWS would have failed to prevent, while a better system would have prevented it. >"Peter Batchelor will be crossing his fingers and hoping it works - and that >will give no confidence at all to commuters who are going to be travelling >on those four lines," he said. It has already worked in the UK, both in cases where the driver had not reacted and in cases where the driver had reacted, but if the driver had not then TPWS would have reacted shortly afterwards. It is still very expensive in the cost per equivalent fatality prevented compared to what the same money could do on the roads, but party politicians want vast amounts of money spent on railway safety while they don't give a shit about road safety. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
Re: Fast train safety called 'B-class'
Author: Andrew Price
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:55
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:55
9 lines
1205 bytes
1205 bytes
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:47:37 +0100, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote: >>He said the better system would allow trains to be spaced on a network at >>safe distances. > >That sounds like moving block. No, fixed block and ATP (the newspaper article refers to Perth).
Re: Fast train safety called 'B-class'
Author: Les Brown
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 01:07
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 01:07
21 lines
2241 bytes
2241 bytes
> >It is still very expensive in the cost per equivalent fatality >prevented compared to what the same money could do on the roads, but >party politicians want vast amounts of money spent on railway safety >while they don't give a shit about road safety. That maybe true in the UK, but here in Australia, they spend billions on road improvements and very little on rail. Consequently, whilst road fatalities have trended to decline in the last 35 years despite many times more vehicles on the roads, rail has not been as dramatic, if at all, despite there being far fewer trains. The main rail line between Melbourne and Sydney substantially follows the original route laid down in the 1870's-1880's. The main highway route between these two cities is totally different from when it was first surveyed. Rail carries only 10% of all freight traffic between the two - it declined as a result of cheaper costs of road cartage. It's about time rail caught up after decades of neglect. Better value for money would have been obtained if rail had kept pace with road improvements. Les Brown
Re: Fast train safety called 'B-class'
Author: Michael
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 08:16
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 08:16
15 lines
1407 bytes
1407 bytes
Chris Brownbill <chrisbrownbill@optusnet.com.au> wrote in news:42aadb66$0 $17509$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au: > The Age are being naughty boys here. Either that or just very lazy. > > The arricle is full of factual errors and unchallenged assertions - > journalism 101 really. > > A sad example of the state to which a once fine newspaper has slipped. Face it, Regional Fast Rail is a costly farce. Just ask all the commuters who are against it because it's not going to deliver any real benefit to them! The facts are in writing, and there's no denying it.
Re: Fast train safety called 'B-class'
Author: Paul Blair
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 05:55
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 05:55
42 lines
3267 bytes
3267 bytes
Les Brown wrote: >>It is still very expensive in the cost per equivalent fatality >>prevented compared to what the same money could do on the roads, but >>party politicians want vast amounts of money spent on railway safety >>while they don't give a shit about road safety. > > > That maybe true in the UK, but here in Australia, they spend billions on > road improvements and very little on rail. Consequently, whilst road > fatalities have trended to decline in the last 35 years despite many times > more vehicles on the roads, rail has not been as dramatic, if at all, > despite there being far fewer trains. > > The main rail line between Melbourne and Sydney substantially follows the > original route laid down in the 1870's-1880's. The main highway route > between these two cities is totally different from when it was first > surveyed. Rail carries only 10% of all freight traffic between the two - it > declined as a result of cheaper costs of road cartage. It's about time rail > caught up after decades of neglect. Better value for money would have been > obtained if rail had kept pace with road improvements. > > Les Brown If you look at road crash figures, you will see that the decline in serious trauma coincided with the introduction of Australian Design Rules in 1970. Have a look at www.atsb.gov.au/road/pdf/mgraph23.pdf In a nutshell, changes like speed cameras RBT etc have played very little part in the reduction. Road spending has made some changes, but not as many as the dollars might suggest. But roads are starting to fall behind the demand as well now. Governments like roads because they are not large money losers like rail. Apart from the responsibility for maintaining the road there's nothing else to do - everyone does their own thing. People pay their own bills, decide when to travel. For a government, this freedom is a big win. Someone will pick me up on rail being losers. No matter how you do the books, rail cannot work at a profit these days. So it has to be fed from the public purse. This deprives pollies of money that they could use for their own re-election. Paul Blair
Re: Fast train safety called 'B-class'
Author: Daniel Bowen
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:12
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:12
13 lines
1813 bytes
1813 bytes
"Paul Blair" <pblair@pcug.org.au> wrote in message news:42ad1fc0$0$13944$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > Governments like roads because they are not large money losers like > rail. Apart from the responsibility for maintaining the road there's > nothing else to do - everyone does their own thing. People pay their own > bills, decide when to travel. For a government, this freedom is a big win. See http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax.shtml Cheers, Daniel
Re: Fast train safety called 'B-class'
Author: David Hansen
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:48
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:48
15 lines
1713 bytes
1713 bytes
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:55:20 +1000 someone who may be Paul Blair <pblair@pcug.org.au> wrote this:- >Governments like roads because they are not large money losers like >rail. Apart from the responsibility for maintaining the road there's >nothing else to do - everyone does their own thing. So, the police and hospitals are not organised by government. Fascinating. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
Re: Fast train safety called 'B-class'
Author: Paul Blair
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:16
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:16
22 lines
1865 bytes
1865 bytes
David Hansen wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:55:20 +1000 someone who may be Paul Blair > <pblair@pcug.org.au> wrote this:- > > >>Governments like roads because they are not large money losers like >>rail. Apart from the responsibility for maintaining the road there's >>nothing else to do - everyone does their own thing. > > > So, the police and hospitals are not organised by government. > Fascinating. > > Read the words. Governments do *not* like hospitals - they lose money, and they get grief from disgruntled users. I live in a city where the police force is outsourced, as the gov't finds it cheaper, and complaints go to the providers. Paul Blair Canberra
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads