Re: "lost" trains

["Dave Proctor" <thadocta@spambait.dingoblue.net.au>]

Tony Gatt wrote in message <386C68E7.DA975FC9@tig.com.au>...
>
>
>Dave Proctor wrote:
>
>> RNS wrote in message <2sko6sghnn6hsi1jldmplv0kv3fvo8j1t2@4ax.com>...
>> >
>> >This means that the same thing was happening that day as the day of
>> >the Cowan bank accident, except on the down instead of the up!
>> >Whilst the signal failures being experienced on Cowan Bank may not
>> >have been the only reason for the accident, it was certainly a major
>> >contributing factor.
>> >Once again, if caution by the following interurban driver had been
>> >excercised the accident either would not have happened, or it would
>> >have been considerablly less serious.
>>
>> But why should he have been exercising caution? My understanding is that
he
>> received green signals. The signalling was definitely the cause (notice I
did
>> not say "at fault") but if every driver constantly exercised caution when
>> receiving green signals, the system would grind to a halt.
>>
>
>My understanding is that the signals were intermittent, the most
restrictive
>aspect of these being "Stop". If I were faced with a defective /
fluctuating /
>intermittent signal, I would certainly treat it with caution. Safety first!

If that is what he saw. But if it was red just before the train came around
the curve, then went to green, and it went to red as he passed it, then the
only indication he would have seen would have been green.

Of course, it is all academic anyway, as the only person who can tell us is
unable to.

Dave