I’m not joking – head off to a workwear supplier, and they’ll list ‘Victoria’ and ‘NSW’ specification high visibility vests.

The NSW version has the reflective strips forming an ‘X’ across the back.

While the Victorian one doesn’t.

The Victorian version apparently conforms to Australian Standard AS4602.1 Figure 2(c).

Australian Standard AS4602.1 Figure 2(c)

As detailed in Metro Trains Melbourne’s Management of Personal Protective Equipment Procedure.

All high visibility garments must be fitted with retro reflective strips. The strips must;

• Meet either requirements of Class R material in Australian Standard AS/NZS1906.4;
• Positioned on the garment in accordance with AS4602.1 (Refer Figure 1 below);
• Are at least 50mm wide;
• Are silver in color.
• Applied and remain in place and serviceable for the life of the garment under normal use and laundering.

Positioning of the strips on garments must be in accordance with Australian Standard AS4602.1 Figure 2(c), as follows:

• a. Two horizontal hoops of retro reflective material must encircle the waist;
• b. Strips of retro reflective material must cover each shoulder.

While the Sydney Trains Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) standards details their style.

Positioning of the strips on garments must be in accordance with AS4602.1, as follows:

• i) One horizontal hoop of retro reflective material must encircle the waist;
• ii) A second horizontal strip must be at the back, below the waist, so as the strip is still visible when the wearer is bending forward or in a stooped position. The minimum gap between the horizontal strips should be 50mm;
• iii) Two vertical 50mm strips of retro reflective material must join the upper horizontal hoop, straight over each shoulder, and forming an “X” on the back

A real dogs breakfast, isn’t it!

This being a canine working on a *Victorian* railway.

A footnote on Australian Standards

Unfortunately I can’t actually check Australian Standard AS4602.1 “High visibility safety garments” for myself, because the publisher SAI Global is a money hungry grub who refuses to make them available to the public, despite their status as an essential service in governing consumer safety.

Meanwhile in Europe…

It seems that the European Union also has it’s own high visibility vest standardisation issues – some countries use yellow, others orange.

Yellow or orange? Our eurostar hi-vis vests are reversible to take account of the requirements of the different countries we work in.
Yellow:
Orange: pic.twitter.com/Hv2rSY2F5h

— Justin on eurostar (@EurostarJustinp) January 5, 2023

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Incompatible high vis vests – another example of rail dysfunction appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Philip Mallis photo

The back story

The City Loop encircles the Melbourne CBD, with train services from different lines taking different routes around it at different times of day, before finally arriving at Flinders Street.

And because the loop consists of four independent tunnels, train services can continue running on one line while another one is closed.

But what about passengers on the line which isn’t running through the City Loop?

Answer – they catch a “Train Replacement Train”.

Confusion abounds

These “train replacement trains” start at Flinders Street, then visit Southern Cross, Flagstaff, Melbourne Central and Parliament, before arriving back at Flinders Street.

Screens on the concourse at City Loop stations call this replacement service the “City Circle”.

Philip Mallis photo

But the screens at platform level call them a ‘Flinders Street’ train.

And the trains running these services just show ‘Special’ on the front.

While back at Flinders Street Station, it’s called a ‘City Loop’ train.

Confused?

Enter the ‘City Circle’

With four independent tunnels in the City Loop looping around the CBD, each one needed a name.

MURLA diagram, undated

Based on which train lines they are connected to.

• Northern Loop – serving the lines through North Melbourne,
• Burnley Loop – serving the lines headed towards Burnley,
• Caulfield Loop – serving the lines headed towards Caulfield, and finally
• Clifton Hill Loop / City Circle – serving the lines towards Clifton Hill, along with a branch back to Flinders Street.

The Clifton Hill / City Circle name can be seen on tunnel walls.

And on emergency exit signage.

The most interesting feature of the Clifton Hill / City Circle tunnel is an underground junction, located just south of Parliament station – a popular spot for urban explorers before security was upgraded.

To avoid any unwanted attention I’m not going to link back to the original photographer

The other end of the tunnel is located beneath the Exhibition Street bridge.

My only photo of the junction was taken hanging out of the open window of a Hitachi train, packing a high powered flashgun.

But I recently made a special expedition to the portal to capture it in use.

And after a loud TOOT an X’Trapolis train emerged from underground.

Headed up the ramp bound for Flinders Street Station.

Footnote: some photos from the past

Until August 1993 the ‘City Circle’ service operated full time to provide cross-CBD travel, until it was replaced by the newly-introduced free City Circle Tram service at ground level.

But City Circle trains still ran as required for operational reasons – I stumbled upon one at Flinders Street platform 1 back in 2005, advertised as a ‘City Circle’ service on the old CRT next train display system.

And took one for a ride in 2012, with the displays onboard the train calling it a ‘City Circle train’.

So that’s great progress in the past decade – going from consistent ‘City Circle’ messaging towards passengers, to a mix of ‘City Circle, ‘Flinders Street’, and ‘Special’.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Melbourne’s mysterious ‘City Circle’ train appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Google Earth

14 January 2014
Air India flight AI301
Boeing 787-8 VT-ANM

Photo by byeangel from Tsingtao, China, via Wikimedia Commons

From the Carry-on blog.

Operating AI301 from Sydney to Melbourne VT-ANM approached and crossed Melbourne from the east following usual tracking paths for aircraft inbound from the north-east to YMML’s active Runway 34.

The flight crew initiated a right turn to lining up for Essendon’s Runway 35 mistaking it for YMML’s Runway 34.

Sources in Airservices Australia confirm the flight crew discontinued the approach at roughly 1,050 ft after being notified by Melbourne Approach, made a left turn, climbed to 1,500 ft and re-established a second approach this time to Runway 34.

The missed approach is easy to see on the flight track.

FlightAware flight tracking log

31 March 1994
Australian Airlines
Boeing 737-300 VH-TJA

Photo by Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland, via Wikimedia Commons

Note: not the same 737 as this incident

From the ATSB investigation.

At about 18 NM from Melbourne, the crew were requested by air traffic control to report when the Melbourne runway was in sight. The crew reported they had that runway in sight and were cleared to track to join final inside 8 NM from Melbourne.

The crew requested and were given further track shortening until they were instructed to make a visual approach for runway 34 and to call Melbourne Tower. The Approach Controller then diverted his attention to other duties for a short period.

On rechecking the progress of the aircraft it appeared, to him, to be on final for runway 35 at Essendon. The aircraft was at an altitude of approximately 1500 feet. The Approach Controller advised Melbourne Tower who instructed the aircraft to turn left for Melbourne. The aircraft subsequently landed without further incident.

The flight crew subsequently advised that when they were given the visual approach they believed they had the Melbourne Airport in sight and its position was confirmed by checking the map displayed on the aircraft flight management computer. However, they had not used any other aircraft navigational systems to confirm their position in relation to Melbourne.

24 February 1991
Lufthansa
Boeing 747-400 D-ABTC

Photo by Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland, via Wikimedia Commons

From the ATSB investigation.

The aircraft, which was approaching Melbourne Airport from the west, was radar vectored onto base leg and descended to 3000 feet.

At 1704 hours Melbourne Approach Control advised the crew that their position was nine miles south-west of the field. They were asked to advise when they had the runway in sight and also to say when the runway 34 lead in strobe lights were sighted.

Shortly after, the crew responded that they had the runway and strobe lights in sight. Approach Control gave the crew their position as six miles south-west of the field, told them to make a visual approach and not to descend below one thousand five hundred feet until established on final.

At 1706 hours the controller told the crew they were approaching the runway extended centre line. The Approach Controller noted that the aircraft was passing through the extended centre line and had not turned to line up with runway 34. He promptly issued instructions to the aircraft to climb to 2000 feet. At about the same stage the crew realised that the runway they had been looking at was too short for their operations and also decided to go around. Further radar vectors were given and the aircraft subsequently landed normally on runway 34 at Melbourne without any other problems.

Runway 35 at Essendon Airport was the runway sighted by the pilots. It does not have lead in strobe lights. The crew indicated they must have seen reflections near Essendon which they mistook for strobe lights.

On the approach the crew had seen a runway from a long way out, which they thought was the north/south runway for Melbourne Airport, but was in fact runway 35 at Essendon Airport. In the lighting conditions at the time they did not see Melbourne Airport, until on the go around.

On the approach the minimum height descended to was just over 1000 feet above the elevation of Essendon Airport.

8 August 1987
Singapore Airlines flight SQ31A
Boeing 747-200, 9V-SQM

Photo by Ted Quackenbush, via Wikimedia Commons

From the ATSB investigation.

On arrival in the Melbourne area the aircraft was vectored by Air Traffic Control (ATC) to a left base position for an approach to runway 34.

At a point 5 nautical miles (9.2 kilometres) south of the airport, and 1 mile (1.7 kilometres) to the left of the extended centreline of the runway, the aircraft was instructed to turn left to take up a north-easterly heading. The crew reported at this time that “we have the field visual.”

The aircraft was then instructed to make a visual approach, and to turn further left for a direct approach to the runway. The crew acknowledged this instruction, but the aircraft was observed to pass through the extended centreline. ATC advised the aircraft that it was now to the right of the centreline, and instructed it to turn left onto a north-westerly heading to intercept this line. The aircraft landed without further incident.

The Captain of the aircraft later advised that he was familiar with the Melbourne/Essendon area. Appropriate navigation aids had been selected to monitor the approach.

The Captain reported that he had initially mistaken Essendon for Melbourne, because the latter had been obscured by rain and low clouds. However, the crew became suspicious when the navigation aids did not confirm the visual indications. They were in the process of correcting the situation when ATC instructed the aircraft to turn to the left as it had passed the extended centreline. The crew had then sighted the Melbourne runway complex and had proceeded visually.

13 May 1987
Air New Zealand
Boeing 767-200ER, ZK-NBC

Photo by Ken Fielding, via Wikimedia Commons

From the ATSB investigation.

The aircraft was radar-vectored for an approach to Melbourne (Tullamarine) Runway 34. The flight crew reported they were “visual” when at 2000 feet and about 17 kilometres (9 nautical miles [nm]) south east of Melbourne.

The Approach Controller advised the flight of its radar position in relation to Melbourne and requested confirmation that the crew had Runway 34 in sight. When this was acknowledged, instructions were given for the flight to take up a heading of 320 degrees; to intercept the extended centre line of Runway 34 from this heading; and to make a visual approach.

Shortly afterwards the Tower Controller at Essendon Airport (5 nm south east of Melbourne) called the Melbourne Approach Controller and reported that a heavy aircraft was on approach for (Runway 35) Essendon.

The Approach Controller called the aircraft, requested its present altitude and, on being advised it was “through fifteen hundred” (feet), instructed the flight to climb to 2000 feet and turn left onto a heading of 320 degrees. He also advised that the aircraft was 7 nm south east of Melbourne and still two miles to the right of the runway centre line.

Shortly afterwards, the flight crew reported they were at 2000 feet and had “Runway 34 Melbourne in sight”. The aircraft was then cleared for a straight in approach and for transfer to the tower frequency. The aircraft landed without further incident.

The flight crew have confirmed that they initially turned towards Essendon but detected their error at about the time the Approach Controller instructed them to turn (back) to 320 degrees and to climb.

30 December 1985
Qantas flight QF36
Boeing 767-200, VH-EAJ

Photo by Ken Fielding, via Wikimedia Commons

From the ATSB investigation.

Air Traffic Control of the aircraft was being exercised by Melbourne Approach, which was directing the aircraft for a landing on Runway 27 at Tullamarine. The controller obtained approval from the Essendon controllers to vector QF36 through Essendon airspace.

The aircraft was progressively descended and when clearing the aircraft to descend to 2000 feet the controller advised the crew that the aircraft was 4 miles to the left of the runway extended centre line. The crew advised that they had visual contact with the ground and were then cleared to continue a visual approach.

Shortly afterwards, the crew sighted a runway and commenced a turn to the left, during which visibility reduced as the aircraft entered a rain shower.

On passing through the shower, the crew immediately realised that they had turned towards Essendon, and a right turn was carried out to continue tracking towards Tullamarine.

When the premature turn was commenced, it was observed on radar by the Approach controller and visually by both the Melbourne and Essendon Tower controllers. The Approach controller queried the aircraft intentions at about the same time as the crew commenced the turn back towards Tullamarine.

A normal landing was carried out about 3 minutes later.

19 June 1985
Garuda flight GA898
Boeing 747-200, PK-GSB

Photo by Peter Bakema, via Wikimedia Commons

From the ATSB investigation.

Garuda Flight 898, was being radar vectored by Melbourne Air Traffic Control (ATC) for a landing on runway 34 at Tullamarine Airport. Shortly after the pilot acknowledged an instruction to call Melbourne Tower the aircraft was seen to turn and descend as though making an approach to runway 35 at Essendon Airport.

The Melbourne Tower controller instructed the aircraft to climb to 3000 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), and a few seconds later the aircraft was seen to be established in this climb. After further radar vectors were given, an uneventful landing was carried out at Melbourne.

It was subsequently determined that the aircraft had descended to a minimum height of approximately 350 feet above the level of Essendon Airport, and was about 1.5 kilometres from the runway threshold before the climb was commenced.

So why is it confusing?

Until the 1960s Essendon Airport was Melbourne’s main international gateway.

Photo by Peter Hough, via Wikimedia Commons

But today it is mainly used by business jets and light aircraft.

But mid-sized jets such as the Fokker F70 can also safely operate into the airport.

From the 1,921 metre long east-west and 1,504 metre long north-south runways.

Google Earth

Which just so happen to be a similar orientation to the 2,286 metre long east-west and 3,657 metre long north-south runways at Melbourne Tullamarine.

Google Earth

This similarity has been noted by ATSB investigators.

There have been a number of instances where Essendon has been mistaken for Melbourne. The two airports are in close proximity and have similar runway configurations. In this instance the flight crew members were not very familiar with the Melbourne area or with the approach to Runway 34.

Who recommended the following back in 1987.

It is recommended that consideration be given to the following

– 1 Operators briefing the relevant flight crews on the real possibility of misidentifying the two airports.
– 2 Operators instructing flight crew to make full use of available radio aids on visual approaches to Melbourne.
– 3 The Department of Aviation providing visual and/or radio aids to assist ready identification of Runway 34, such as sequenced strobe lights leading to the threshold and/or an instrument approach facility to the south of the airport.

The largest aircraft ever to land at Essendon Airport were a handful of Boeing 707s back in the 1960s – I’d hate to see what would happen to a Boeing 747 that tried to do the same.

Spot the difference

One spotting feature is the different strobe lights pattern at each airport – Essendon Airport’s beacon flashes white every four seconds – Melbourne Airport’s beacon flashes alternate white/green.

While the aerodrome charts also feature a warning – “WARNING: Secondary airport (Essendon) 5NM south-east”.

Airservices Australia – Aerodrome Charts

And Melbourne Airport runway 34 now has a distinctive identifier – three sets of sequenced white strobe lights commencing 485 metres from the end of the runway, and aligned with runway 34 centreline.

Airservices Australia – Aerodrome Charts

Footnote: freeway confusion

A hazard for pilots landing at Essendon Airport at night is the freeways that surround the airport.

An issue raised by the ATSB in a 2017 investigation.

The airport has two runways aligned 17/35 and 08/26, and it is bounded on two sides by freeways with substantial amber lighting and well-lit residential areas. At night, the lights around the airport present a complex picture. The published aerodrome chart had a caution note describing that amber freeway lighting may confuse flight crews when attempting to identify runway 08/26 lighting.

Computer confusion too

On 10 March 2015 an AirAsia flight from Sydney to Malaysia ended up having to divert to Melbourne when the pilot entered the wrong initial coordinates into the inertial navigation system.

Photo by byeangel from Tsingtao, China, via Wikimedia Commons

And some unsourced stories

I found this story online referring a supposed incident around 1996.

About 5 years ago I was flying in the circuit in a little PA-28 at Moorabbin. It appeared to me that there was a B747 on long final. My flight instructor flicked the freq to Melbourne International, and sure enough, Alitalia 747 was lined up on the Moorabbin runway (which is less than 1.6 km long!) and complaining that he had visual but his navaids were all wrong. Melbourne Airport cleared him for a visual landing but then cancelled the clearance when they saw where he was on radar!

And this one from the 1970s.

They were also aware of anecdotal accounts of a DC-10 lining up to land on the Essendon runway sometime in the 70s, and being warned off at the last minute.

• An even longer list of mistaken approaches to Essendon Airport
• Boeing 737 at Essendon Airport? –
  Sydney Airport Message Board
• 100th Anniversary of Essendon Airport – Aviation Spotters Online
• Flightpaths and building heights around Melbourne Airports
• Wrong Runway, Wrong Airport, Wrong Country – OpsGroup
• Runway confusion – Flight Safety Australia

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Pilots confusing Essendon Airport for Melbourne Airport appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

They might start at the Victoria Harbour terminus at Docklands.

And run down Collins Street.

But after Spring Street they don’t turn towards Wellington Parade and Bridge Road – route 48d starts following route 109 along MacArthur Street and Victoria Parade.

Until it finally arrives at Kew Depot, where route 48 and 109 finally meet again.

So why do route 48d services mislead passengers by following Victoria Street? Yarra Trams says it is a normal practice:

Hi Marcus, thanks for contacting us. Route 48d tram travels from Stop D18 Victoria Harbour Docklands along Collins Street and continues down Victoria Street to Kew depot. We hope this info helps and apologise for any inconvenience.

— Yarra Trams (@yarratrams) December 18, 2019

But I would argue the route number is deceptive and should be changed – route 109d services also run down Collins Street, on a section of track not used by normal route 109 services.

So who cares if route 48d starts down at the Docklands end of route 48, where route 109 doesn’t run – it’s far more misleading to make people think you’re going to go through Hawthorn like a normal route 48 service, but end up in Abbotsford instead!

A history of depot tram route numbers

Once upon a time trams headed for the depot were even more confusing:

The don’t show up in timetables and cannot be seen on maps.

Like the supernatural creatures after which they are named, they can be tricky to find and, on paper at least, their existence is difficult to prove.

They are Melbourne’s ghost trams, secret services that slash waiting times for passengers in the know.

They ferry passengers to a depot or another point on the network where a tram is needed. It’s just that they are unscheduled.

Adding to the mystery – or confusion – is the fact that they have their own unique route number because they service only sections of a line.

Yarra Trams says different route numbers are allocated to avoid confusion. But PTUA president Daniel Bowen said the current system was even more baffling.

“It’s good that these services run,” he said.

“But using unknown route numbers that nobody has ever heard of is not good customer service.

“If the service is running most of the distance of the main route they should just use the main route number … it doesn’t make sense to have so many trams running that no one knows about.

“They are not on signs, not on the web and just appear on the streets. If people knew about them they would recognise them and use them.”

The ‘ghost’ trams could be found all over Melbourne.

But that was finally simplified in 2011 when the simpler ‘a’ and ‘d’ route number system was introduced.

New tram route numbers are being trialed for altered services and services returning to the depot, from Sunday, 28 August 2011.

Mysterious route numbers such as 81, 121, 77 and 92 are being phased out to encourage more passengers to catch them to their destination.

The so-called phantom routes do not appear on the network map or timetables. They are services that are necessary to get trams to and from depots or to reposition them on the network.

Rather than running these trams empty to their destination, they still pick up passengers providing extra trips above existing timetabled services.

The new route identification format for these services will feature their parent route number and the letter ‘a’ or ‘d’.

This format means passengers will know that the “phantom route” travels along a regular timetabled and mapped route but terminates short of the end of that route or detours for part of its journey.

The letter ‘d’ means the tram terminates at the ‘depot.’

The letter ‘a’ means the service is ‘altered’ and is not running the full length of the route.

If you see a letter after the route number, check the destination display to find out where the tram is going.

So why are trams down Collins Street towards Kew Depot assigned number 48d? Back in October 2011 I photographed one such service.

But headed along Bridge Road.

As detailed by Hugh Waldron in his history of Kew Depot:

Route numbers rationalised with the abolition of intermediate route numbers. To replace the depot and infrequently used route numbers a and d letters were introduced. This resulted in the following Kew Depot route numbers being abolished:-

• 28 City – Richmond replaced by 48a via Collins St. and 75a via Flinders St.
• 29 Victoria Harbour or City to Kew Depot via Bridge Road replaced by 48d.
• 41 Victoria Harbour – Harp Road Kew replaced by 48a
• 42 Box Hill – Victoria Harbour replaced by 109a
• 47 Kew Depot via Victoria Street replaced by 109d or 31d

So maybe route 48d trams where at some point changed to run via Victoria Street, but no one thought that necessitated changing the route number route 109d?

Footnote

In 2009 Hugh Waldron compiled a full history of Melbourne tram route mumbers.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Confusion abounds on route 48d to Kew appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Just look at this contractor attempting to fix a broken myki gate at Southern Cross Station.

‘Q: The next train to Geelong?’
‘A: Sorry, you want the guy in the V/Line vest. I’m just a contractor’

‘Q: Where do I buy a ticket?’
‘A: Sorry, you’ll need to find one of the V/Line guys hiding over there’

Best to save your high vis vest for the zoo, the movies, or a gig. You’ll waltz right in without paying.

The world is a stratified place. Important people get into exclusive places. Everyone else has to pay shit loads of money, or watch longingly through the fence. But there’s a loophole into getting into places for free, if you’re so inclined. You just need to pretend to be an important person. And people who wear hi-vis are important in the sense that they fix things no one else cares about. If you see someone in hi-vis stepping through a barricade, or marching past a bouncer, you naturally assume they’re headed to fix something. This makes a hi-vis vest the keys to life.

Footnote

Back in the days I worked in retail I had similar problems – walk into any shop in uniform while on my lunch break, and I’d get questions from confused customers asking where to find something, despite the fact I didn’t work there.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post High vis vests make anyone look official appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.