Re: "lost" trains

["nobody" <dweebken@NOSPAM.yahoo.com>]

Well im not so sure how much caution a driver should take under the
circumstances of seeing one faulty signal then a fine one. However perhaps a
little more caution *could* have been exercised, considering that problems
with the signaling in that area were well known and reported. How far?
Perhaps waiting 5 minutes at the next signal to check how it was acting
wouldnt have gone astray.
Who knows?
Does the answer, if there is one, get us anywhere?
I dont like this thread of argument. No matter what your point of view,
there was a fault in the signals. How bad, for what reason, and for what
cause are only relevant for fixing it. When a signal is faulty, it can
confuse a driver. In this case, it did.
I'd suggest a little technology be put in place. GPS beacons are used in
some locomotives - they could be used to indicate proximity to another
train. Communications may be improved - a common band(s) for each signal box
perhaps, which allow trains to autmatically digitally tune in to that
section.
Heck im sure lots of people could argue till the cows came home about what
the problem was. Perhaps this should be altered to arguing about what could
be done to prevent anything like these accident in future.

Brendan

"Dave Proctor" <thadocta@spambait.dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
84siu6$dff$1@news1.mpx.com.au">news:84siu6$dff$1@news1.mpx.com.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
> >>
> >
>
>