Re: "lost" trains

[gerardms@optusnet.com.au (Gezza)]

I think everyone is getting a little carried away with the rights and
wrongs of the Glenbrook collision. Everything said so far is pure
speculation and I do think that everyone should wait for the result of
the inquiry before forming any opinions as to who is to blame for this
unfortunate accident. Lets just hope that lessons are learned from it,
and it is never repeated.

Regards
Gezza

On Sat, 1 Jan 2000 18:52:19 +1100, "Dave Proctor"
<thadocta@spambait.dingoblue.net.au> wrote:

>Tony Gatt wrote in message <386DAC1A.AF3126B0@tig.com.au>...
>>
>>
>>Rod wrote:
>>
>>> RNS <steam3801@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news: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.
>>> Why the hell would he have been cautious?
>>
>>Because he is charged with the responsibility (as a driver) of the safety
>>of all the passengers that he carries on that train. You should know that
>>better than anyone.
>
>You are carrying this a bit far here Tony. Sure, he has the responsibility
>for the safety of the passengers, but if he did not know there was anything
>wrong with the signals, then it would be unreasonable to expect the driver
>to proceed at extreme caution, ready to stop clear of any obstruction. If
>this was the case, no train would ever get up over the 20km/h mark.
>
>Dave
>