Re: "lost" trains

[RNS <steam3801@hotmail.com>]

Because that was reported at the time. The signal person at Hawkesbury
River had been talking to the interurban driver about the steam train
ahead having trouble.




On Sat, 1 Jan 2000 16:25:11 +1100, "Dave Proctor"
<thadocta@spambait.dingoblue.net.au> wrote:

>RNS wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>>The reason he should have exercised caution in this case was that he
>>was aware that the steam train was having difficulties ahead and a
>>little bit of caution for the next two signals would not have caused
>>the system to grind to a hault. Also there had been ongoing problems
>>on Cowan bank with trains stalling and, indeed, signal failures.
>
>Again, how do you know he was aware? If all he had seen was a green signal
>(and had not seen the signal showing green and red intermittently) he would
>have had no reason to suspect that something was wrong.
>
>Dave
>
>>
>>
>>On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 18:54:57 +1100, "Dave Proctor"
>><thadocta@spambait.dingoblue.net.au> 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.
>>>
>>>Dave
>>>
>>
>