Re: "lost" trains

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

RNS wrote in message <3ed37sslnpevsb9ai1jjum4oh48pseta9a@4ax.com>...
>
>Assumptions in an industry like rail are what causes accidents.
>Caution is always the right attitude in safety, no matter what
>industry we are discussing.

Based on that, trains should never exceed 20km/h, since drivers are always
assuming that signals are functioning properly?

And there has still been no reply to the question I asked in my reply to
Tony (not suggesting it should come from Tony, btw - a reply from anyone
will do) - the driver saw a faulty signal - how far should he have exercised
caution, ready to stop short of any obstruction? Until he saw a signal that
did not appear to be faulty? Until he entered another signal boxes area? All
the wya to Central?

Based on what I have read, the driver saw *one* signal that was fluctuating.
He proceeded at caution, and then found another signal which was on steady
green. Given that he had not (based on reports) been told there was a
general signalling system failure in the area, it is not unreasonable to
assume that only the one signal was faulty. Based on this, it was perfectly
reasonable for him to be travelling at the speed the signals and line speed
indicated he could travel at.

Unless you want every train that encounters a faulty signal to travel at
20km/h for the rest of its run, that is.

Dave

>On Mon, 3 Jan 2000 21:05:53 +1100, "Dave Proctor"
><thadocta@spambait.dingoblue.net.au> 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/
>>
>>Dave
>>
>