East Hills duplication - Signalling

[john...@nospam.com.au]

Signalling on the new tracks appears to be unidirectional, but I suspect that
there is provision to manually reorient signals for bidirectional signalling.

The guard rails on bridges are unidirectional.

What did the designers have in mind here?

[Chris Diesel]

<john...@nospam.com.au> wrote in message
news:c1.2c.3Yl7Zc$0...@PC1.BIGPOND.COM...

I don't know about the bi-di. But I often wonder why they have duplicated
this line rather that the main south? Do they intend to use the East Hills
for more inter urban and inter city services?

[terryc]

On 15/01/13 23:47, Chris Diesel wrote:
> <john...@nospam.com.au> wrote in message
> news:c1.2c.3Yl7Zc$0...@PC1.BIGPOND.COM...
>>
>> Signalling on the new tracks appears to be unidirectional, but I suspect
>> that
>> there is provision to manually reorient signals for bidirectional
>> signalling.
>>
>> The guard rails on bridges are unidirectional.
>>
>> What did the designers have in mind here?
>
> I don't know about the bi-di. But I often wonder why they have duplicated
> this line rather that the main south?

The all stations limit express trains.

[Chris Diesel]

"terryc" <newsnine...@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:kd42si$v3g$1...@dont-email.me...

It seems to be a great cost for just all stations limit express trains. One
would have thought they would have had a better bag for there buck by
duplicating the main south, as well as a few other projects.

[terryc]

You will have to explain yourself better. repeating it doesn't make it
any clearer.

Commuters from major dormitory suburbs use the East Hills Line to get
into work. Remember, they put the Glenfield - East Hills link in
espressely for this purpose. My understanding in that the "main south"
is rather choked and it would be exceedingly costly to increase capacity.

>
>