Re: Independent Review of Rail Safety Arrangements in Australia

[keithm@commslab.gov.au (Dave Malcolm)]

In article <JVhb4.1290$FY3.2272@ozemail.com.au> "John Kerley" <deaftech@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>From: "John Kerley" <deaftech@ozemail.com.au>
>Subject: Re: Independent Review of Rail Safety Arrangements in Australia
>Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 18:20:07 +1100


>Dave Proctor <thadocta@spambait.dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
>84k1vu$q2v$3@news1.mpx.com.au">news:84k1vu$q2v$3@news1.mpx.com.au...
>> John Kerley wrote in message <8Jeb4.1199$FY3.2281@ozemail.com.au>...
>> >
>> >Exnarc <gwrly@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
>> >news:84bcl2$bqp$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >> Every System required someone to protect in the rear during failures,
>not
>> >> just TS&T. When 2 man crewing was introduced the rules were changed to
>> >make
>> >> provision for this, DOO is just an extension of that.
>> >
>> >Not exactly.   When travelling on train staff i.e. not on ticket, or on
>> >electric staff on a single line, rear end protection was not required.
>>
>> You sure about that? What about warning the loco sent to recover the train
>> (if it came from behind) that it was approaching the failed train?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>This rule applied to the initial stoppage.

>However if relief needed and the staff taken away from the train, then
>protection was required.

Why would the staff be taken from the train?

Dave Malcolm

>Cheers,

>John Kerley