Stanwell Park Tunnel REF - Transport for NSW - NSW Government

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Priority is given to emergency services which could result in a failure of 100% radio coverage across the rail network. The network is both inside and outside the rail corridor. GRN would require a substantial upgrade, including new base stations, to ensure 100% radio coverage across the rail network. The cost of this upgrade is comparable to the development of an entire new network. The radio communications marketplace responded with three systems: APCO-25, Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) and GSM-R. APCO-25 is a proven standard for emergency services but was rejected for the reasons listed below. It has no proven history of usage in a rail environment. It does not support a functional addressing system that maps train run numbers to mobile subscribers’ numbers, which is a key requirement. It does not meet the interoperability requirements. It relies on a dispatch terminal for functionality, which does not meet TfNSW’s reliability requirements. It is not scalable in regard to the future growth of the rail network. TETRA is also a proven emergency services communications system and is deployed in a number metropolitan rail networks. However, it was rejected for the reasons listed below. This application is confined primarily to underground metro networks that are not comparable to the electrified rail network. It relies on a dispatch terminal for functionality, which does not meet reliability requirements. It does not meet the interoperability requirements. There is no commercialised Automatic Train Protection (ATP) solution available. GSM-R was deemed the platform most suitable for the electrified rail train network and system requirements for the reasons listed below. It is the only rail-specific communications standard and has the highest levels of safety and reliability in its design. It is an open standard with a large number of equipment suppliers. It achieved a higher level of compliance with the TfNSW functional requirements when compared to the other systems. It is deployed by major rail operators in Europe and Asia, some with networks comparable in size and complexity to the electrified rail network. Page 28 of 72
It operates on a spectrum of 1800 MHz which was available for purchase by TfNSW. The other options would have required the leasing of a radio spectrum from a telecommunications licence holder. It is a scalable network that can grow in step with the electrified rail operations and network. It is compatible with the Australian Rail Track Corporation’s communication system. It provides a platform for future enhancements and increased operational safety, including a Level 2 Automatic Train Protection (ATP) System, as per the recommendations of the Waterfall inquiry. It will deliver the best value for money solution with the least risk. 3.5 Alternatives to the Stanwell Park Tunnel site The following options were considered for the development of the Stanwell Park Tunnel site: • To do nothing; or • Install the antennas on existing communication facilities in the Stanwell Park Tunnel area. The do nothing option was rejected for the reasons listed below. • The inability to meet the requirement of 100% radio coverage across the electrified rail network. • A ‘black spot’ in the DTRS network, resulting in a significant safety issue in the event of an emergency call or a train incident. • The increasing maintenance costs of the MetroNet facility and the limited reliability for adequate operation for the next 10 – 15 years. None of the existing communications facilities were in a suitable position or offered the required height to provide adequate coverage to the rail network, and as such were not selected for this proposal. Radio frequency modelling also indicated that a new DBS at Stanwell Park Tunnel Station would not provide adequate coverage to the rail corridor. Another site would then be required, increasing costs and environmental risks. Other infrastructure options were considered, but were not feasible for the proposal. • The proposed hinged mast is less obtrusive, requires less space and will be cheaper to maintain than a lattice tower or guyed mast. A hinged mast also uses a foundation design that is better suited given the spatial limitations within the rail corridor. The hinged mast is thinner at the top and less obtrusive than a lattice tower, helping to minimise the visual impacts of the proposal. Page 29 of 72
Page 1 and 2: Digital Train Radio System Stanwell
Page 3 and 4: 4.13 Electromagnetic Energy (EME) .
Page 5 and 6: Approval Process The proposal is be
Page 7 and 8: 1 Introduction 1.1 Background to th
Page 9 and 10: Site Co-ordinates Location 1: Latit
Page 11 and 12: Location 1 Location 2 Figure 2 Site
Page 13 and 14: A letter will be sent to all proper
Page 15 and 16: 2.2 State Environmental Planning Po
Page 17 and 18: State Environmental Planning Policy
Page 19 and 20: Roads Act 1993 Under Section 138 of
Page 21 and 22: Table 1 Consideration of ESD for th
Page 23 and 24: 3 Description of the Proposal 3.1 S
Page 25 and 26: Construction on the DBS facility wi
Page 27: The skip bin and site compound area
Page 31 and 32: 4 Environmental Impact and Risks 4.
Page 33 and 34: Possible Risks There is a risk that
Page 35 and 36: Disturbed areas will be rehabilitat
Page 37 and 38: 4.5 Noise and Vibration Existing Si
Page 39 and 40: Distance to Approx. construction No
Page 41 and 42: A search for known items of Aborigi
Page 43 and 44: A search of OEH register of contami
Page 45 and 46: Visually sensitive receivers in the
Page 47 and 48: where trenching is required is not
Page 49 and 50: 4.14 Traffic and Access Existing Si
Page 51 and 52: cumulative construction impacts, th
Page 53 and 54: Clause 228 Factor Impacts Comments
Page 55 and 56: Factor (Commonwealth Legislation) I
Page 57 and 58: specifications. Regular inspection
Page 59 and 60: the presence of waste and/or other
Page 61 and 62: Light Spill No specific control mea
Page 63 and 64: Appendix 1: Principles from the Tel
Page 65 and 66: Principle 2: Telecommunications fac
Page 67 and 68: Principle Proposal aerodrome or air
Page 69 and 70: Principle (m) The likelihood of har
Page 71 and 72: Appendix 3: Database Searches Extra

Stanwell Park Tunnel REF - Transport for NSW - NSW Government

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?