The great Adelaide shutdown 2013

 
  AFULE Chief Train Controller

Location: South Australia



Maybe they are planning to do something in that area if funds were to become available in the budget that may warrant the tracks to be temporarily shifted, while they undertake a construction project there. If that was to be the case it would be a waste of tax payers money to upgrade the track and then dig it up again why the new construction was undertaken
"AFULE"


It may be that they actually intend to build the proposed new overhead Oaklands station. This would necessitate a ramp where the wooden sleepers are situated and the possible re-location or elimination of Warradale station.

As the cost will be very great and much more urgent measures like the electrification of the Gawler Central line will have to be paid for with severely restricted finances, this is not likely. We may well see the rebuilding of this section of track as part of the present project.

As a long-time resident of Warradale I, like many local people with whom I speak, fail to see the necessity of such a grandiose scheme which realistically seems like 'pie in the sky' when there are what seem to us to be much cheaper alternatives. This is another thread, so I will put some thoughts in the Oaklands Crossing discussion for you to consider and dissect.

"SAR526"

SAR526, you may be right on the right track, you could just pick up/copy the Black Forest overpass and put it there, that would eleviate all of the issues to do with congestion and conectivity Smile

Sponsored advertisement

  defman70 Train Controller

Almost wasn't gonna bother with this post because of all the self proclaimed industry know it alls on here that need to ultimately consult their own "rumour" mill to see if info is correct... but there is a 15km hour restriction through the whole Adelaide yard that is there due to balls up in placement of the upright gantry posts in the Adelaide yard. The new National rule book has infrastructure requiring to be 3 or more metres from the outside running rail, but these have been placed within the prescribed 3 m in reference to the OLD rule book. Watch this space.....
  AFULE Chief Train Controller

Location: South Australia



Almost wasn't gonna bother with this post because of all the self proclaimed industry know it alls on here that need to ultimately consult their own "rumour" mill to see if info is correct... but there is a 15km hour restriction through the whole Adelaide yard that is there due to balls up in placement of the upright gantry posts in the Adelaide yard. The new National rule book has infrastructure requiring to be 3 or more metres from the outside running rail, but these have been placed within the prescribed 3 m in reference to the OLD rule book. Watch this space.....

"defman70"


The 15km/h is more likely to let the track settle through Nairne Junction.

  62440 Chief Commissioner

The 3 metres applies to continuous structures eg Goodwood dive walls. A tighter clearance applies to intermittent structures such as masts or poles with the clearances being increased to allow for curvature.
  defman70 Train Controller




The 3 metres applies to continuous structures eg Goodwood dive walls. A tighter clearance applies to intermittent structures such as masts or poles with the clearances being increased to allow for curvature.

"62440"


Um.. Yes.. might have been under the old system, but no... the National standard is now that infrastructure must be outside 3m from the outside rail head. As a result the 15km/h restriction has been placed on the Adelaide yard. Electric trains do not want to derail into gantries at speed...

It has NOTHING to do with bedding down Nairne Junction... other people know some things too gentlemen!

  steam4ian Chief Commissioner






The 3 metres applies to continuous structures eg Goodwood dive walls. A tighter clearance applies to intermittent structures such as masts or poles with the clearances being increased to allow for curvature.

"62440"


Um.. Yes.. might have been under the old system, but no... the National standard is now that infrastructure must be outside 3m from the outside rail head. As a result the 15km/h restriction has been placed on the Adelaide yard. Electric trains do not want to derail into gantries at speed...

It has NOTHING to do with bedding down Nairne Junction... other people know some things too gentlemen!

"defman70"


Typical of Standards.  Does this now mean that Sydney &Melbourne trains will creep along at 15 kph?

If a train derails at speed i don't think 100mm is going to make a scrap of difference. Somebody has to do some serious risk analysis, that takes engineering not hiding behind rules.

Ian

  62440 Chief Commissioner


Nice new junction in Adelaide Yard and we had our first points failure with a bit of a shutdown on all Gawler and OH trains. Not sure where the failure was, didn't spot the usual hivis.

The North Yard is well on the way, just waiting for a turnout at the west end, sidings ballasted and connected.

Rosewater Junction limps on in dribs and drabs but the rails seem to be complete and ready for ballasting. This will allow through running from NRM to Adelaide and to Dry Creek (and Barossa?) as well as Outer Harbour to Dry Creek.

Regarding clearances I dug out ESC215 for RailCorp. The 3000 clearance for masts is to track centreline not outside of running rail. For example on the Mandurah line by this figure, track centres would be 3000+3000+70+70+1067+430 ie 7600, where it was built at generally 5600 centres and less through South Perth, or so on straight track which would have prevented construction through South Perth. I would be interested as would many others here to see a link with the date when each state adopted it. I assume you are referring to AS7633:2012 which I am trying to source.

  Milkomeda Chief Train Controller

The Advertiser were reporting switch control problems as the reason for last nights brief closure of the OH and Gawler Line.
  Sarails Assistant Commissioner

Location: @ Work

So...

I used the new toilets at Adelaide Station the other day, gotta love the stainless steel feel against your cheeks; can't wait for winter!

  justapassenger Minister for Railways








The 3 metres applies to continuous structures eg Goodwood dive walls. A tighter clearance applies to intermittent structures such as masts or poles with the clearances being increased to allow for curvature.

"62440"


Um.. Yes.. might have been under the old system, but no... the National standard is now that infrastructure must be outside 3m from the outside rail head. As a result the 15km/h restriction has been placed on the Adelaide yard. Electric trains do not want to derail into gantries at speed...

It has NOTHING to do with bedding down Nairne Junction... other people know some things too gentlemen!

"defman70"


Typical of Standards. Does this now mean that Sydney &Melbourne trains will creep along at 15 kph?

If a train derails at speed i don't think 100mm is going to make a scrap of difference. Somebody has to do some serious risk analysis, that takes engineering not hiding behind rules.

Ian

"steam4ian"


Hmm, I can think of a few other changes we'll need to make if we're going to be completely subservient to standards. Somebody at DPTI might need to be sending a very nice email to Transport for London asking them to send over an mp3 of their “mind the gap” announcement soon Very Happy

I agree, sometimes risk aversion won't work (only way to avoid risk on the railways completely is to have no railways) and you have to go for risk management instead. Let's be realistic here - standards “exist” only on paper and as such they are even easier to shift out of the way than a deformable electrification mast designed to be mown down if hit by a derailed train.



So...

I used the new toilets at Adelaide Station the other day, gotta love the stainless steel feel against your cheeks; can't wait for winter!

"Sarails"


Did they just cram a whole bunch of EXELOO's into the station? Not a bad idea considering we now have the desal plant and an abundance of water that gets paid for whether it's used or not.

  David Peters Dr Beeching

Location: "With Hey Boy".

There is only one thing with a standard though that is it is the desired location etc but on the ground constraints read other rails and infrastructure can impact on it. I used to be a plumber and we had a set of definite standards and regulations that we had to follow by the book, however sooner or later you ran into a situation where you could not do it by the book so then an inspector would come in and help you the plumber overcome the problem so that the customer got what he was paying for. In most cases standards can be waived under some circumstances such as closeness to other tracks, buildings etc.

To move a pole or poles in this case might have caused the whole yard to be thrown out of whack using standard clearances so with an engineers or other specialist OK they have been put where they are. And as already has been said another 100mm further away is not going to stop a derailed train hitting that particular staunchion.

  Tonsley213 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Everywhere except South Kensington

These standards are all a load of smeg. How often do cars run off roads and into stove poles or other thing on or bears roads and compare how often train run off their rails and hit things.

Stupid. At least be coherent over all transport forms.

  AFULE Chief Train Controller

Location: South Australia
It must have been done correctly, because it has all been signed of by the rail regulator, otherwise they would not have been able to re-open the Adelaide yard.
  defman70 Train Controller




It must have been done correctly, because it has all been signed of by the rail regulator, otherwise they would not have been able to re-open the Adelaide yard.

"AFULE"


Well... they HAVE stuffed up.. because in our notices AND talking to the project officer AND talking to the ex Safety officer of TransAdelaide, they all say the same thing... Shock horror.. someone else knows something!

  steam4ian Chief Commissioner






It must have been done correctly, because it has all been signed of by the rail regulator, otherwise they would not have been able to re-open the Adelaide yard.

"AFULE"


Well... they HAVE stuffed up.. because in our notices AND talking to the project officer AND talking to the ex Safety officer of TransAdelaide, they all say the same thing... Shock horror.. someone else knows something!

"defman70"


Oh TISH!

I may be critical of the Department but I don't rejoice in failures.

Then again, did they really have many options regarding stanchion location. Are there solutions other than tear up the Standards or redo the yard? Can the lower part of the stanchion be encased in mass concrete crash deflecters?

It is intersting working as a consultant to the Department, you find they don't really understand what they are doing and they want you, the consultant, to carry the can. I pulled out from working for them when warned off by a mate in the Department.

Regards
Ian

  defman70 Train Controller








It must have been done correctly, because it has all been signed of by the rail regulator, otherwise they would not have been able to re-open the Adelaide yard.

"AFULE"


Well... they HAVE stuffed up.. because in our notices AND talking to the project officer AND talking to the ex Safety officer of TransAdelaide, they all say the same thing... Shock horror.. someone else knows something!

"defman70"


Oh TISH!

I may be critical of the Department but I don't rejoice in failures.

Then again, did they really have many options regarding stanchion location. Are there solutions other than tear up the Standards or redo the yard? Can the lower part of the stanchion be encased in mass concrete crash deflecters?

It is intersting working as a consultant to the Department, you find they don't really understand what they are doing and they want you, the consultant, to carry the can. I pulled out from working for them when warned off by a mate in the Department.

Regards
Ian

"steam4ian"


Who's rejoicing in failures... not I!

My comment was a less than thinly veiled swipe at those people who on this forum who think that they have dibs on all the information out there. There ARE some people who have connections too!!
I think they did have more options... passing through the yard several times a day indicates that there is more room to play with for starters... I agree on your last statement!

  duttonbay Minister for Railways




These standards are all a load of smeg. How often do cars run off roads and into stove poles or other thing on or bears roads and compare how often train run off their rails and hit things.
"Tonsley213"

I dunno. I've never heard of a car hitting a stove pole, but I am sure it's happened. Maybe if the kitchen is at the front of the house. Not too many cars in Australia have hit bears either.

  Tonsley213 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Everywhere except South Kensington
LOL I meant Stobie pole. I wrote that on my iPhone, I caught most of the silly changes it made, but I missed that one
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA

I have been in contact with defman70 because I too heard from a source very close to an allied part of the yard redev that the rigging for the overhead had been installed within the required clearence distance.

It turns out we've both been told very similar things by two independent sources AFULE with all of the ins and outs of the yard since it's reopening how much more 'bedding in' do you think might be expected? After that period would it be safe to guess that maybe there's something more at play?

  justapassenger Minister for Railways




Then again, did they really have many options regarding stanchion location. Are there solutions other than tear up the Standards or redo the yard? Can the lower part of the stanchion be encased in mass concrete crash deflectors?

"steam4ian"


This type of standard exists to maximise the safety for users of rail vehicles, not to keep the masts from being damaged.

If they must be closer to the track than would otherwise be desired, it would be better for the masts to be easily deformable so they are mown over (or held in place by bolts which will deliberately shear off) if they get hit by a train. A tougher concrete structure could cause significantly more damage to the rail vehicle in the event of a derailment.

Deformable masts and gantries are easily replaced, especially if a limited number of standard designs are used across the network with spares kept in stock. Passengers killed by a tough concrete structure intruding into the vehicle are not so easily replaced.

  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
And what would you say about 25kV just randomly laying around...
  AFULE Chief Train Controller

Location: South Australia



And what would you say about 25kV just randomly laying around...

"Aaron"


As soon as it dropped it would isolate itself wouldn't it?

  steam4ian Chief Commissioner






And what would you say about 25kV just randomly laying around...

"Aaron"


As soon as it dropped it would isolate itself wouldn't it?

"AFULE"


Possibly, but not immeditely, certainly the juice would be on long enough to kill and most likely long enough for there to be enough energy to start a fire.

It only takes 10 milliseconds to initiate death and the best the circuit breakers could do is remove power in 100 milliseconds; I think the actual system allows up to 400 milliseconds. This is one area in which I have some authority and am not just an interested amateur. A lot of energy passes in 400 ms.

As well as the contact wire and related 25 kV stuff there is the gantry beams which would nicely slice off the top off a car to produce scenes reimiscent of Granville.

If the stanchions can't be moved then deflecting barriers (mass concrete) and or check rails are the answer. It was done to bridges and other lineside structure after Granville.

As I said above, I am disappointed this has happened. I hope it can be fixed both cheaply and without undue embarrassment to those involved.

Regards
Ian

  Milkomeda Chief Train Controller

Anyone got any progress on how far they are with the masts on the line?
  David Peters Dr Beeching

Location: "With Hey Boy".

I would suggest at the Adelaide end of the line not very far as they have a huge excavation to make yet at Goodwood to put in the underpass, so I would assume that only those clear of this site would actually get put in if at all, they might wait till the underpass is complete and then place the rest of the masts into position after it is completed. Only a guess here but it would seem logical putting up masts etc does not take long to do.

One other thing about standards are that they are a set of ideal types of things and some deviation from them might have to be permitted under certain circumstances.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: Pressman

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.