Welcome to the New South Wales EPA

In the state of New South Wales rail operators are required to hold an Environment Protection Licence issued by the NSW Environment Protection Authority. The licence for interstate rail freight is held by the Australian Rail Track Corporation, in their role as track access provider.

But the licence includes restrictions on the classes of locomotive allowed to operate on the ARTC network in New South Wales.

L2 Noise limits

Note: It is an objective of this Licence to progressively reduce noise impacts from railways systems activities to the noise level goals of 65 dB(A)Leq, (day and evening time from 7am – 10pm), 60 dB(A)Leq, (night time from 10pm – 7am) and 85dB(A) (24 hr) max pass-by noise, at one metre from the facade of affected residential properties.

The licensee must obtain approval from the EPA prior to permitting operation on the “premises” of:

1. a class or type/model of locomotive, whether new or existing, that is not included in Condition E2; or
2. a locomotive that has been substantially modified since it was last used on the licenses premises.

A new class of locomotive type/model previously approved under Condition L2 may be brought onto the rail network without further approval provided that it is consistent with that type/model and EPA is notified at least 7 days in advance. Condition E2 will then be updated at the next opportunity.

Note: EPA approval for a new locomotive will be granted on the basis of compliance with the locomotive noise limits in Condition L2.5, L2.6 and L2.7 and will require submission of noise test results from a representative number of locomotives from that class or type/model.

A schedule of approved locomotives also appears, their inclusion via different approval paths:

• Locomotives which operated into New South Wales before the 1980s are permitted as they were “introduced prior to approval process”,
• Locomotives introduced during the 1990s were “approved under previous legislation”,
• Newer locomotives from the 2000s have underwent a EPA class approval process,
• And the modern plague of Downer EDI Rail GT46C ACe and UGL Rail C44aci locomotives are type approved, so their different class designations don’t matter from an EPA perspective.

But for rail freight operators there is still a stumbling block – encountered by interstate locomotives that never operated into New South Wales before the EPA rail noise regulations were introduced.

Enter the Queensland Railways 2800 class

The Queensland Railways 2800 class are diesel locomotives introduced in 1995 to run freight trains on the narrow gauge network in Queensland.

Photo by Pytomelon87, via Wikimedia Commons

But from 2003 Queensland Rail expanded interstate as QR National, and decided to put one of the 2800 class onto standard gauge.

But there was a problem – the locomotive didn’t meet NSW noise standards, despite noisier locomotives already being permitted under the legacy approval path.

Aurizon (formerly QR National) initially applied to operate the 2800 class locomotives in NSW in 2006. This initial application was made for the locomotive using the original (as-supplied) transition muffler and coffin muffler. At this time, permission to operate in NSW was refused on the basis of noise emissions.

Subsequently, modifications were made to the transition muffler, improving its performance, and Aurizon again applied to the EPA for permission to operate this class in early 2012. The locomotive was again refused permission to operate by the NSW EPA on the basis of low-frequency noise emissions.

So modifications were made to the exhaust – and the test passed.

The EPA has subsequently approved this locomotive class (rebadged as the 3200 class) for use in NSW, stating that “Based on the information provided, the EPA considers that the noise performance of the 3200 class locomotive is consistent with current best practice in NSW.”

With the three modified locomotives now able to operate in NSW.

And the one-off diesel GML10

GML10 is a one-of-a-kind diesel locomotive, built in 1990 for the Goldsworthy Mining Company to operate iron ore trains in the Pilbara region of Western Australia.

J Joyce photo via Rail Heritage WA

In 1994 it was sold to Comalco to operate on their bauxite railway at Weipa in Queensland, then sold again in 2009 to Australian Locolease who resold it to Qube Logistics, who operate it on standard gauge freight trains across Australia.

But there was a problem – GML10 had never operated in New South Wales to be approved under the legacy approval path, and as a one-off locomotive, going through the onerous noise approval testing process doesn’t make financial sense.

So Qube’s solution – drag the locomotive dead attached through New South Wales.

A waiver to the published conditions in the ARTC Train Operating Conditions Manual is granted for the movement of GML10 from Broken Hill to Albury via Parkes and Junee ARTC network in NSW. GML10 to be dead hauled at all times.

Or turn off the locomotive before it crosses the border into NSW, and park it in the yard at Albury!

A tactic that bit Qube on their behind in 2017, when a failed train had to be rescued, and GML10 was the only locomotive available to assist.

As a result, Qube sought special permission from ARTC to operate the locomotive over the 2500 metres from the NSW/Victoria border into Albury yard.

A waiver to the conditions of the ARTC TOC Manual is issued for the movement of Locomotive GML10 from the Vic/NSW border into Albury yard under its own power.

Locomotive GML10 is required to be attached to a disabled grain train in Albury. There is no other practical method of movement.

Conditions of movement:

1. The engine of GML10 shall be run for the minimum practical time to SAFELY complete the relocation movement.
2. The movement shall be completed using power setting no greater than notch 2.
3. Movement shall be carried out in daylight hours, 0800 – 1800, to minimize impact on receptors.
4. Once attached to the train GML10 shall be shut down and hauled past the border prior to restarting.
5. Conditions of TOC Waiver 15113 shall re-apply after this movement is complete.

A comical situation, especially given unmodified diesel locomotives from the 1950s are allowed through New South Wales making as much noise as they please.

Footnote: the Border Railway Act

Another complexity on rail noise regulations is the broad gauge railway that crosses the Murray River at Echuca and continues north to Deniliquin in New South Wales.

The railway is operated as an extension of the Victorian rail network.

And is governed by the 1922 Border Railways Acts, with New South Wales passing control of the railway to Victoria.

Control and management of certain railways by Government of Victoria

The Government of Victoria shall, subject to the agreement, have the right to control and manage any railway in New South Wales referred to in the agreement, and the Victorian Authority may, in respect of such control and management, exercise all the powers which are by law conferred on the Victorian Authority in respect of railways in the State of Victoria.

Including what I see is authority to power to set their own rail noise regulations.

Schedule 1 The Agreement

The Government of New South Wales undertakes to vest in the Government of Victoria any authority necessary to sanction the working of any railway or railways under this Agreement in New South Wales territory, including collection and enforcement of fares and freights, and the vesting of the control and management of the lines in the State of Victoria.

So presumably a new-build broad gauge diesel locomotive could operate on the Deniliquin line without issue – assuming one was actually built!

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Rail noise regulations – yet another “break of gauge” appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

I set off from the CBD at C̶i̶r̶c̶u̶l̶a̶r̶ ̶Q̶u̶a̶y̶ the Ferry Building.

The ferry set off across the water, C̶e̶n̶t̶r̶e̶p̶o̶i̶n̶t̶ ̶T̶o̶w̶e̶r̶ Sky Tower above the skyline.

The arch of the S̶y̶d̶n̶e̶y̶ ̶H̶a̶r̶b̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶B̶r̶i̶d̶g̶e̶ Auckland Harbour Bridge to one side.

Navy ships moored at the G̶a̶r̶d̶e̶n̶ ̶I̶s̶l̶a̶n̶d̶ Devonport Naval Base.

As we headed across S̶y̶d̶n̶e̶y̶ ̶H̶a̶r̶b̶o̶u̶r̶ Waitematā Harbour.

Before our arrival at the M̶a̶n̶l̶y̶ Devonport ferry pier.

There I realised I could catch a bus back to the city.

So I caught a local bus to the M̶a̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶V̶a̶l̶e̶ Akoranga busway station.

And jumped on a B̶-̶L̶i̶n̶e̶ Northern Busway double decker bus.

To the northern terminus of M̶o̶n̶a̶ ̶V̶a̶l̶e̶ Albany.

And then hopped on a bus headed back south towards the W̶a̶r̶r̶i̶n̶g̶a̶h̶ ̶F̶r̶e̶e̶w̶a̶y̶ Northern Motorway.

I found a separate set of lanes to one side, o̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶m̶s̶ ‘cliped-on’ to the original bridge.

On the other side there was a tangle of exits from the W̶e̶s̶t̶e̶r̶n̶ ̶D̶i̶s̶t̶r̶i̶b̶u̶t̶o̶r̶ Auckland Northern Motorway.

And there it was – S̶y̶d̶n̶e̶y̶ ̶ Auckland!

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post A ferry trip across the harbour in Auckland appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

That’s not my Seddon railway station… the building is too wooden.

And that’s not my Spotswood railway station… there isn’t a station there at all!

So were are they?

Melbourne’s Box Hill railway station has three platforms located beneath a shopping centre in the eastern suburbs.

While New Zealand’s Box Hill station is a single platform on the Johnsonville Branch in Wellington, and run by a different Metlink to the Metlink in Melbourne.

Melbourne’s Seddon railway station in the inner west has two platforms and a brick station building.

New Zealand’s Seddon is a closed station in a small town beside the Main North Line in the Marlborough region of the South Island.

And Spotswood – Melbourne has a nice 1920s suburban station.

While New Zealand’s Spotswood is a tiny little locality in the Hurunui District, about 120 km north of Christchurch.

Further reading

The ‘That’s Not My…’ book series at Wikipedia.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post That’s not my railway station… appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

The process starts with a bus chassis – a bare steel frame with diesel engine and mechanical running gear, manufactured by overseas companies such as Scania, Volvo, Mercedes, MAN, Iveco or BYD.

Photo by Øyvind Berg, via Wikimedia Commons

They arrive in Melbourne onboard a roll-on/roll-off ship.

Then driven down to the wharf.

And transported on the back of a truck to the Volgren factory at Dandenong.

There they fabricate aluminium.

Australasian Bus and Coach photo

To form the floor, walls and roof of a bus.

Volgren photo

Then add fiberglass front fairings.

Rear ones.

And larger modules like air conditioning units.

Put them all together.

Then add seats and everything else passengers need inside.

Australasian Bus and Coach photo

And you have what we recognise as a bus.

Footnote: but can you take them for a drive?

Yes, you can actually take a bare diesel bus chassis for a drive.

But the chassis for electric buses are more complicated with their roof mounted batteries.

BYD photo

So they get imported as a wrapped up package that needs to be towed around.

Footnote: Gemilang Australia

Gemilang Australia is another company that has built buses for Melbourne, as a joint venture between Malaysian bus builder Gemilang, and OzPress Industries of Ballarat. Their “locally built” buses are imported as knock-down kit, then finished here.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post ‘Made in Melbourne for Melbourne’ buses appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

How we got there

The story starts the same was as Australia’s rail gauge muddle, where each colony started building railways based on their own standards, never thinking the systems would meet to form a national network.

But despite early trials on the Commonwealth Railways during the 1950s, the rollout of two-way radio systems was resisted by many Australian rail operators. Franklin Hussey, Crew Operations Manager for the National Rail Corporation, had this to say to the 2001 Special Commission of Inquiry Into the Glenbrook Rail Accident.

The introduction of train radio systems combined with track circuiting has been slow to develop in Australia, contrary to what occurred in the United States of America after World War II.

In Australia they were not contemplated until an incident in Victoria at Barnawartha in the 1982 when a freight train collided with the rear of the Southern Aurora.

He stated that New South Wales was the least developed of all the States until the development of the Metronet and Countrynet systems the mid-1990s.

So one might think the lessons of the past on rail gauge would lead to standardisation – but it didn’t.

Communications facilities and current call types have evolved due to the different safeworking practices of the rail authorities and their investment strategies. Each system has evolved to best meet the requirements of their operation and necessarily are influenced by the equipment capabilities which in turn depend on the level of investment. The differences between systems is a major inhibition to flexible locomotive operation on the interstate corridors.

And so each state-based rail operator adopted their own standards for radio communications.

And the mess

By the 2000s there were 20 different radio systems in use across Australia – most states using different radio systems for their suburban and country rail networks.

Australasian Railway Association diagram

To make matters worse, there was no single radio capable of supporting all 20 systems.

Whilst most areas are shown as requiring UHF radio, it should be noted that no single UHF radio can do the job.

The UHF radio used in the Perth Greater Metropolitan area is a trunked radio with narrow band operation. In general, radio transceivers that can provide the trunked radio operation cannot also provide the wide band conventional operation required for the rest of the country.

A standard, off-the-shelf conventional mobile radio can be used for the remainder of the UHF train control areas outside NSW. But in Victoria this radio is useless unless connected to a Motorola ASW or MDC600 unit.

In NSW, a special duplex radio is required for Metronet and Countrynet. There is only one source of duplex radio to our knowledge, although one can contrive a full duplex radio from two simplex radios.

Access to the Metronet system is limited to a particular brand and model of mobile radio. Although it is technically possible to implement the Metronet radio functions with other radio transceivers, the necessary information and approvals are not available.

Similarly, RIC is at present the only source of Countrynet equipment.

So a train travelling from Brisbane to Perth via Melbourne required six different radio receivers in the cab.

Rod Williams photo

Changing radio channels along the way.

Yet unable to talk to the driver of a steam train up ahead.

The driver of the suburban train running on the track alongside.

Or the driver of a parallel V/Line train.

In search of solutions

The formation of the National Rail Corporation in 1992 to take over the operation of interstate freight services on the railways of Australia provided an impetus to dealing with the mess of incompatible radio systems.

Weston Langford photo

They wrote in 1998.

Radio frequencies change frequently across the national track network, requiring complex radio equipment, and constant attention from drivers to ensure correct radio channels are selected for each task and area. The very large number of frequencies in use also places large demands on rail operators and track owners for provision of radio equipment and on controllers for attention to detail in its use.

So they patched over the problem with a system called AWARE – “Australia Wide Augmented Radio Environment“.

ATSB photo

It presented a single radio screen to the train driver, and managed a cabinet full of radio equipment, switching between them based on which systems were used at the current location.

ATSB diagram

But radios are still a problem

The inability for train crew from different operators to talk to each other in an emergency was a contributing factor to a number of rail crashes between trains during the 1990s and 2000s.

ATSB photo

At Glenbrook in NSW.

At 2 December 1999 a State Rail Authority interurban train collided with the rear of the Indian Pacific tourist train. The accident occurred because of a fault in an area of automatic signalling. As the signalling system was not functioning normally, control of train movements through the area was therefore managed by the signaller and drivers.

There is no single integrated system which enables communications between the various trains, signallers and controllers involved in operations on the rail network. In the case of this particular accident there were five different communications systems which were involved, namely, three different two-way radio systems (known respectively as Metronet, Countrynet and WB), dedicated line telephones at the bases of signals, called signal telephones, and mobile telephones operating on either the GSM terrestrial based network or by satellite.

Corio in Victoria.

On 1 October 1999 a freight train came to a stand at Corio station after an emergency brake application on the train. On investigation it was found that the train had separated, the rear portion of the train had six wagons derailed. The damaged wagons were fouling the Broad Gauge Line and the standard gauge line with severe track damage to both.

The report recommended that all locomotive drivers and train controllers to be instructed that immediately a train comes to a stand on a running line, the driver must inform the train controller who, in turn, must inform the train controller in charge of any parallel lines, so that all trains on the parallel lines can be warned.

Hexham in NSW.

On 12 July 2002 an empty coal train derailed at Hexham, fouling two out of the three adjacent railway lines. A short time later a passenger train collided with the fouling wreckage. The line that the passenger train was travelling on was track circuited but the track remained unbroken, preventing the automatic signals returning to stop. The crew from the coal train tried to contact the local signal box with no success.

And Chiltern in Victoria.

On Sunday 16 March 2003 a Pacific National freight train derailed south of Chiltern railway station on the standard gauge railway line. At about 1512 a V/Line locomotive hauled passenger train travelling from Albury to Melbourne on the broad gauge railway line, collided with wreckage from the derailed freight train. The collision derailed the locomotive and two carriages of train 8318

There was an about two minute window from the time train 1SP2N came to a stand, up to the time the driver of train 8318 applied the emergency brake, to try and stop train 8318 before the derailed train. In that time the drivers from train 1SP2N had repeatedly tried to warn train 8318, but were unsuccessful. The drivers also followed procedure by notifying ARTC train control but the message was delayed by four minutes before being relayed to the broad gauge train control (Centrol), not in time to prevent the collision.

And a solution

In 2007 the Australian Rail Track Corporation, announced that they would be developing a single National Train Communications System to be used on the interstate rail network.

Seventy-seven new Next G regional base stations will be built as part of an $85 million communications deal signed today between the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) and Telstra.

The agreement will see Telstra’s leading Next G network used to replace nine separate communications systems across 10,000km of rail tracks.

Replacing a series of old technologies, such as two-way radios and CDMA devices, the new network will provide telecommunications coverage for the interstate rail network – from Brisbane to Perth (via Melbourne and Broken Hill) and in the Hunter Valley. The agreement improves coverage in tunnels and across the Nullarbor Plain, introduces new communications equipment for more than 700 locomotives, and is backed up with Satellite if necessary.

Chief Executive Officer of ARTC, Mr David Marchant, said once completed all trains and train controllers would be able to use the one system to communicate with each other across the entire national rail network from Brisbane to Perth, as well as the Hunter Valley Coal Network, eliminating the inefficient nine different communications systems for train operators.

“ARTC is breaking new ground in Australian rail communications,” Mr Marchant said. “A single national communication system will greatly improve operational efficiency and reduce costs associated with managing multiple platforms.

General Manager Strategy Development and Chief Information Officer for ARTC, Mr Leon Welsby, said the new communications network will provide train controllers with real time GPS location of all trains, wherever they are between Brisbane and Perth.

Australian government funding under the Auslink National Transport Plan has been made available to provide this common communications system for the national rail network.

The new system supported four different data connections.

• Satellite
• GSM-R
• UHF (analog, digital)
• 3G (UTMS, HSDPA)

All controlled by a single ICE (In-Cab Communications Equipment) unit developed by base2 communications.

The rollout

One the new system had been proven in trials, it was time to roll out a new radio to every single train that operated over the ARTC network.

An ICE unit in every cab.

And new radio antennas on every roof.

V/Line’s fleet of VLocity trains didn’t miss out.

Gaining an array of new antennas.

Melbourne’s restored ‘Tait’ set also received an ICE radio.

And even steam locomotives didn’t miss out!

Gaining radio antennas on the cab roof.

Positioning of the ICE unit presented difficulties for some steam locomotives.

The radio equipment box on A2 986 ended up beside the coal bunker!

But in the end it was done – and the last of the legacy radio systems switched off in December 2014.

The Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) officially switched off the last two of seven out-dated regional radio systems previously used on its network today, completing a seven year project.

“The ‘switch off’ of the old radio systems in NSW and Victoria means freight trains operating on ARTC’s national freight rail network now use a single, safer, digital radio system,” ARTC CEO John Fullerton said.

While the physical network including mobile communications towers and satellites has been in place since June 2010, the retrofitting and testing of ICE (In-cab Communications Equipment) units across the national locomotive fleet and multiple operators has now been completed.

Currently 900 trains with ICE units operate across the country, 704 units were supplied by ARTC as part of the NTCS project.

Around 1024 Telstra Mobile sites form part of the communications network along ARTC’s rail network. Telstra provided an additional 81 radio sites along the rail corridor comprising 70 macro base stations and 11 radio fitted tunnels.

The Next G system is for non electrified NSW, the Victorian tracks controlled by ARTC, SA, NT and WA tracks, excluding the PTA system.

Finally putting an end to a mess created during the 1980s.

Footnote: Victorian train radio systems

The original 1980s analogue radio systems in Victoria used Motorola Micor base stations and Motorola Syntrex radios, with the Motorola MDC-600 data system.

Suburban trains used the ‘Urban Train Radio System’ until it was replaced by the GSM-R based ‘Digital Train Radio System’ (DTRS) using Nokia-Siemens Networks equipment in August 2014.

Country trains used the ‘Non-Urban Train Radio System’ with which was finally replaced by the NTCS-based Regional Rail Communications Network (RRCN) from 2017.

Further reading

• Train Radio Systems of Australia – Australasian Railway Association (2005)
• Australia Wide Communications Systems for CargoSprinter – John Aitken (2002)
• Review of rail access regimes – Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities (2018)
• Optimising harmonisation in the Australian railway industry – Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics (2006)
• Derailment of Pacific National Freight Train 1SP2N and the Subsequent Collision of V/Line Passenger Train 8318 – ATSB (2004)

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Australia’s train radio “break of gauge” appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

The track is titled 一於少理 (“Yi Yu Shao Li”) and is the work of Hong Kong singer Alan Tam – a superstar in the world of Cantonese-language pop songs. It appeared on his 1983 album 遲來的春天 (“The Delayed Spring”) – hot on the tails of the Men at Work’s original Down Under climbing the charts across the world.

Footnote

Unlike most national days, for most Aussies celebrations on Australia Day don’t amount to more than sinking the piss at a summer BBQ – so just change the date already.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Cantopop cover of an Australian classic appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

I’ve spotted them up in Queensland, where they use the 25 kV AC electrification system.

I’ve spotted them over in Adelaide, which also adopted the same voltage for their new electric trains.

And I’ve noticed them in Sydney, which uses the same 1500 volt DC system as Melbourne.

And curiously, on the Sydney Light Rail, which uses 750 volt DC power for traction.

The reason for these insulation gaps is safety – if the overhead lines that power trains fall to the ground, the last thing you want to happen is the entire railway station become live, and electrocute any passengers who happen to be touching a metal object! By providing insulated gaps in metal fences between the ‘trackside’ and ‘station’ sections, this risk is reduced.

Back in Melbourne, I’ve never seen an insulated gap in our station fences – only jumper cables between the overhead stanchions and the running rails.

And grounding connections between the tram fences and the tram tracks.

It makes me wonder – why doesn’t Melbourne have insulated gaps in the metal fences around out railway lines?

Some recent developments

About five years ago Melbourne started adding some new.

Insulating plastic shrouds around overhead stanchions on station platforms.

I wonder what the driver for their rollout was?

Further reading

The Transport for NSW Asset Standards Authority (ASA) has published Guideline on Earthing and Bonding at Railway Stations that explains the safety issues further.

At railway stations, three main types of risks may exist:

1. Risks associated with 1500V DC stray leakage or fault current.
2. Electric shock risk due to 1500V DC touch & step potential rise under fault condition
3. Electric shock risk due to high voltage/low voltage distribution systems’ touch & step potential rise under fault condition

There is a possibility that overhead wiring structures may rise to a potential above earth. The risk of persons receiving an electric shock when standing beside an overhead wiring structure and touching the structure is present and is of concern.

Other hazardous situations where persons could receive an electric shock is when physical contact is made by touching overhead wiring structures at the same time as they touch lighting poles, metallic parts of canopies or awnings, steel troughing, metal fences or rolling stock.

In order to minimise these risks, methods have been developed and deployed for the overhead wiring system.

As well as a document detailing the specifications for insulation panels found in their fences.

Insulation Panels

Insulation panels, a minimum of 2200mm in length, are required in metallic fencing in the electrified area to break the fence up into short electrically isolated sections. The panels consist of the fence material with supporting posts that are non-metallic. The panels are installed where ‘continuous’ fencing:

• would otherwise approach within 2.0 metres of an OHW structure (including any metallic attachments to the OHW structure such as switch handles, back anchor guy rods etc)
• would otherwise approach within 2.0 metres of station fences, foot bridges, rail bridges, entrance fences and metallic buildings
• runs parallel to, and within 2.0 metres of, above ground metallic signalling/cable troughing or air lines. The insulating panels must be located directly adjacent to the insulated joint in the signalling/cable troughing or air lines
• meets any high voltage substation fence (either RailCorp or local electricity distributor). Where the substation earth mat extends outside the substation fence, ‘continuous fencing must not enter the area of the earth mat.
• meets any pole mounted or pad mounted substation (either RailCorp or local electricity distributor). The ‘continuous’ fencing must not enter the area of the earth mat. The continuous fencing must also not be closer than 2.0 metres from exposed substation metal fittings.

Insulation panels are to be installed:

• to ensure that persons cannot contact ‘continuous’ fencing and any other metallic service such as OHW structures, station fences (associated with the station low voltage earthing system and water pipes) and footbridges that extend outside RailCorp property,
• at approximately 300 metre intervals in the ‘continuous’ fencing (with a maximum spacing of 800m in areas away from above ground signal troughing).

The non-metallic posts shall have a clearance of minimum 50 mm and maximum 100 mm from the adjacent metallic post of the ‘continuous’ fencing. Each non-metallic post must have a warning sign attached as shown on the drawing.

The bottom rail shall be installed so as to remain 80 mm clear of the ground.

Security and High Security Fences

When installing security and high security fencing, the fence shall be designed and positioned so to reduce or eliminate the requirement for insulation panels. Where insulation panels are required and can not be avoided, they shall be of a design that complements the high security performance of these fence types.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Insulated fences beside electrified railways appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

The Indonesia Institute is Perth-based non-governmental organisation which from their on their web site and list of board members don’t appear to be overtly political.

However in their 2014 submission to the Productivity Commission public inquiry into Childcare and Early Childhood Learning, they veer into very “out there” territory:

The Institute submits that immigration and labour regulations should be liberalised to allow carers from Indonesia (and other Asian countries) to work as nannies in Australia at a cost acceptable to both nannies and the majority of Australian families.

It will be helpful for purpose of this submission to briefly describe how the Institute’s proposal might work. The Institute considers that the following description is realistic, based on the experience in other countries.

• a. An Asian nanny would be paid approximately AUD 200 per week. This is twice the amount a nanny would earn in Indonesia.
• b. A percentage of the AUD 200 would be paid to an Australian agency to oversee the scheme (as is done in Singapore). The Institute considers it crucial that an Australian agency would have oversight of the scheme to ensure the welfare of Asian nannies while they are in Australia.
• c. The host family would lodge a bond with the Australian agency. The bond would be held against the possibility that the nanny was not paid or was mistreated.
• d. The host family would provide and pay for:
  • i. private medical insurance,
  • ii. accommodation and food,
  • iii. a work clothing allowance.
• e. The nanny would be entitled to every Sunday off and a return airfare home for 2 weeks every year (as is done in Hong Kong).

Note the comparison to Hong Kong, as the proposal from the Indonesia Institute is a carbon copy of the ‘Foreign Domestic Helper’ system in Hong Kong – one which has been compared to slavery; and lead to accusations of human trafficking, forced labour, torture, and physical abuse against those who come to the city to work.

Later in their submission, the Indonesia Institute comments how sustainable similar programs elsewhere:

As is demonstrated elsewhere in the Asia Pacific region (for example, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan) the use of caregivers from developing Asian countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines is market based and therefore highly sustainable. There is no requirement for governments to subsidise the provision of care in those countries.

They also detail how they believe such a program will help developing nations in Asia:

The Institute considers that the Institute’s proposal would open a new, highly sustainable, avenue of funds to developing nations in the Asia Pacific region. This is highly sustainable because it is not aid but the result of value-adding economic activity. Indonesian expatriate carers typically return to Indonesia with sufficient funds to purchase property or set themselves up in business. This enduring positive effect in developing countries has support in recent economic literature on development.

However the big point that the Indonesia Institute doesn’t address is the potential for the exploitation of migrant workers – bringing people with little money and no support network into a situation of what is essentially servitude to their employers.

Footnote

Turns out this idea is nothing new – back in 2014 The Age published an article titled Call for Asian nannies to reduce childcare costs that covered the same ground, again quoting the Indonesia Institute.

Further reading

• The original submission from the Indonesia Institute.
• More about ‘Foreign Domestic Helpers’ in Hong Kong.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post ‘Backpacker au pairs’ and lessons from Hong Kong appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

This is a TV commercial for the 2012 Australian Open.

So what the hell is this advert for?

Despite the first 5 seconds of the advert showing how a hypothetical product clears the head and nose, if you said ‘cold and flu medication’ you’re wrong – it’s actually a TV commercial for the 2017 Australian Open.

In September 2016 it was revealed that the two decade old Australian Open logo was on the way out, replaced by a stylised ‘A’ and ‘O’.

I wonder how they came up with such a insipid design – hotboxing in the Rod Laver Arena locker rooms?

February 2017 update

Spotted on Twitter: a new Korean budget airline has knocked off the Australian Open for their logo – or an American health food store.

Korean budget airline, Australian sporting match or American health food store? All with a similar logo. pic.twitter.com/cTSkm9Xnk8

— Will Horton (@winglets747) February 21, 2017

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Cold and flu remedy, or sporting event? appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Off to Mildura

Mildura is one of Victoria’s many wine regions, and also the origin of a freight service that carries containers of export goods to the Port of Melbourne.

Among those loaded containers is bulk wine, loaded into 20 foot long ISO ‘tanktainers‘.

The giveaway is the scrawled ‘alcoholic beverages’ text on the emergency information panel.

Just don’t go tapping the wrong tank – this similar looking Orica container is located with sodium cyanide!

And up in New South Wales

Mcwilliam’s Wines based in Griffith took things further – they had 11 dedicated tank wagons to transport bulk wine from their processing plant at Yenda to their bottling and distribution plant at Pyrmont, which later moved to Chullora.

Robert Cook photo

Further reading

In 2014 British wine critic Jancis Robinson wrote this piece on bulk wine exports from Australia:

In the last few years there has been a huge structural change in how wine is delivered to those who drink it. The UK, for example, is the most important market for one of the world’s most enthusiastic wine exporters, Australia. In 2008 fewer than three in every 10 bottles of Australian wine on British shelves contained wine that had been shipped from Australia in bulk rather than in bottle. Four years later that figure was eight in every 10, and the total amount of wine shipped out of Australia in bulk overtook the volume exported in bottle.

The reason for the switch to bulk transport?

This was when Britain’s major retailers and food producers signed the Courtauld Commitment to reduce packaging waste, which had the result of dramatically increasing the proportion of wine brought into the country unencumbered by heavy glass packaging.

But there is one big downside.

But what may have been good for the planet, has been bad for Australia and bottlers in other major wine-exporting countries with their mothballed bottling plants. The big bottle producers are international companies that have merely switched their supply bases, but in countries such as South Africa, bulk shipping has had a serious effect on local employment.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Wine goes by train appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.