Re: Safeworking Rules.

["Exnarc" <gwrly@netspace.net.au>]

> > So the world stops because a light goes out!!!!
> >
> > The current Commuter rail systems would soon loose all their dwindling
> > traffic if this philosophy took hold.
> >
> > Could you imagine for how long people would tolerate: "Sorry all trains
on
> > the #@*%! Line have been cancelled until a signal fitter can arrive to
> > replace a blow fuse etc. Or a driver announced to his passengers "There
> will
> > be a 2 hour delay because a signal ahead (for the section he can see is
> > clear) is defective".
> >
> > There has to be provisions in all operating Rules for failures, yes they
> > must be safe provisions, but never-the-less, provisions must be there,
to
> > suggest anything less only proves a lack of knowledge of railway
> operation.
> >
> > Bob.
> >
> True. But it is also inconvenient if that same announcement runs along the
> lines of: "All trains have been cancelled because of a derailment that has
> killed several people because a train ran through a faulty signal". I know
> which I prefer. Either way, a faulty signal can stop the world moving, but
> so can the rear end of another train.
>
> Brendan

So the one occassion in 100  million when, for what ever reason, a train
collides with another is going to stop the whole rail industry.

If thats the case we may as well give up now.

We can't operate in failure situations because non operators think that its
unsafe to operate under rules that provide for such situations. Whilst I
understand your concerns, its pointless continuing this debate because if
you insist on totally restrictive rules, the rail industry will fold, whilst
the truckies laugh all the way to the bank.

Bob.