Re: Independent Review of Rail Safety Arrangements in Australia

["John Kerley" <deaftech@ozemail.com.au>]

Exnarc <gwrly@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
84m0j7$1vrp$1@otis.netspace.net.au">news:84m0j7$1vrp$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
>
> John Kerley <deaftech@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> 8Jeb4.1199$FY3.2281@ozemail.com.au">news: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.
>
> Check again. On TS&T if the Fireman went forward the Guard protected in
the
> rear, if the Fireman went back he protected according to Reg 239 on his
way,
> Guard protected in the oposite direction. If relief was not available from
> the direction the fireman went, then both the staff and the Fireman were
> transfered to the other end of the section. ie: the Fireman didn't allow
the
> staff out of his sight until he handed it to the relief Driver.
>
> This way both directions were protected by detenators, hence the word
> "Protected".

Yes, as I clarified in another post, what I was originally refering to was
that when a train was on staff (either TS or ES) it was not required for the
guard to immediately go back and protect if the train stopped in the section
account a failure, etc. (unless it fouled another running line not covered
by that token) i.e. it was not considered a "rear ender" was an imminent
possibility whereas if on Ticket or other forms of safeworking, this was
considered a possibility. (refer Reg. 239 (m))  This was also the reason why
the signalman had to advise the guard whether the train was on staff or
ticket in TS&T areas so that the guard knew whether he had to protect
immediately in the event of failure.  However once it was decided relief was
needed, then protection was provided as you decribe above, whether the train
was on staff or otherwise.
>  > <snip>
> > >
> > > For example: DOO in limited applications is safe (such as V/Line Pass,
> the
> > > Met apply it etc), in the form that NRC propose (IMO) it isn't.
> > >
> > I certainly do not agree that DOO as used on the Met is safe.  My son
was
> > nearly killed shortly after guards were removed when a train took off
when
> > there were still half a dozen people boarding.  These incidents are
still
> > happening.  Even in the last month there was a press report of lady
caught
> > in the doors and dragged along the platform and only saved by a young
> bloke
> > pulling her free.  I wrote to both the Minister and the Union over the
> > incident with my son.  The Minister replied saying "It was all the
> driver's
> > fault".  The Union did not even have the courtesy to reply.  No wonder,
> > given the way they betrayed their members at the back so that those at
the
> > front could gain  their "thirty pieces of silver"!
>
>
> You are entitled to your opinion, I doubt if the Ministry would have said
it
> was the Driver at fault, if they had they would have been admitting
> liability, something they never did.

The exact quote was "The investigation revealed that the train driver was at
fault and appropriate action has been taken."  Even more interesting is that
the letter was signed by Alan Brown, his actual autograph, not one of his
minions!  The letter then when on to decribe the changes they were going to
make, along the lines you mention have been implimented.  Nevertheless, the
recent case was an elderly lady being dragged, not some yahoo forcing the
doors open.  Thus the system is still far from safe.
>
> As for people being dragged, I can't see how that is any different to
before
> guards were removed, my recollection of the majority of Suburban guards
was
> that they gave 2 beels to the Driver, shut the van door and went back to
> reading their papers, meanwhile the train was departing the platform, this
> happened both with and before power doors.
>
> Yes I agree people do sometimes get caught in doors, but lets examine
why!!!
>
> 1. Firstly before departing the Driver must ensure that the doors are
clear.
> 2. He presses the door close button.
> 3. He observes he has a steady blue light on the door closed panel.
> 4. He departs.
>
> To this point it is impossible for him to move the train, until he gets
the
> Steady Blue Light. It just will not power.
>
> Lets look at how people get dragged.
>
> After the doors close button is pressed, a time delay of 3 seconds will
> occurr before the doors close and traction power is available, the doors
are
> fitted with a Secondary Release Feature which, if a door fails to close
> completely due to a person or object being caught in the door, the doors
> will release again to allow the person or object to be removed, during
this
> time the chimes will sound for upto 60 seconds, all controlled by the
> Programmable Logic Control (PLC).
>
> Now to get dragged, the doors must have been proved to be closed before
> power can be obtained, once power is obtained and the train commences to
> move, any "FOOL" who then tries to open them to board a moving vehicle is
> asking for what they get. Power is unavalable till the Doors are proved
> closed, then it takes another 3 seconds before the train can move.
>
> As for your comments about betrayal and 30 pieces of silver, I 'll treat
> that with the contempt it deserves.
>
> See to be dragged, (or nearly dragged) you would have to be sky larking or
> down right Stupid, I'll leave the judgement upto you!!!!!
>
>
> > > The removal of Guards was not a retrograde step, infact it has
improved
> > > operations in Victoria,
> >
> > For drivers pay!
>
> What 18% increase, get real!!!!
>
> Bob.
>
Your deficit view of guards is unfortunately not uncommon amongst members of
your profession, even if it is somewhat "uncomradely".  I suppose credit is
due to Comrade Frank and his colleagues for acheiving a scoreline of AFULE
1 - ARU 0, which interestingly contrasts with the British experience where
it was NUR 1 - ASLEF 0 when the second persons got the flick and guards kept
their jobs in the reduction to double manning.  Also of interest is Comrade
Frank's apparent change of heart on the evils of single manning since his
spell as "gamekeeper", judging from the tone of his recent articles in the
"Digest".

Of course, the real scoreline in all this is THE RICH 1 - ORDINARY PEOPLE 0,
and when ordinary people collaborate with the rich in what they perceive as
their immediate short term interest, they themselves are sealing their own
fate.  You may have originally retained two people up front, but this is
gradually being reduced and zero manning is not an impossibility for rail.
Then won't the truckies have the last laugh.

John Kerley