Re: "lost" trains

["Dave Proctor" <thadocta@spambait.dingoblue.net.au>]

Tony Gatt wrote in message <38707EB0.858665A6@tig.com.au>...
>
>
>Dave Proctor wrote:
>
>> RNS wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>> But it would not be unreasonable to assume that the steam train had got
over
>> its troubles if confronted with a green signal, would it/
>>
>
>Seems unreasonable to those who were killed or injured at Cowan.. how long
would
>it take you to check??

Oh for Gods sake Tony, you are just nit picking for the sake of nitpicking.

The driver was told that the steam train was having trouble. He then saw *a*
signal fluctuating. He reported it.

He then saw one (possibly two) signals that appeared to be working perfectly
well.

What was he supposed to do, drive at no more than 20km/h all the way to
Central?

He saw a signal, possibly two, that were not malfunctioning (based on what
he had before him). For him to do anything else would have been a gross
exaggeration.

>Everytime something happens (from the beginning of Rail movements), the
>safeworking is improved..
>From one train in steam, to time interval, to staff working, and right up
to CTC
>there are improvements..
>
>But human nature allows us to "think", and even worse allows us to
assume...
>
>Think about it, "assume" you were on the train.. not a nice thought eh??

And try looking at what would have been a "reasonable" reaction based on
what we believe we know about what happened. We will never know *exactly*
what happened since the only person that can tell us cannot do so. I think,
based on what has come out, he was acting reasonably.

Dave