Re: "lost" trains

[Tony Gatt <baulko@tig.com.au>]

Dave Proctor wrote:

> 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?

I cannot believe that you are still sticking to this ridiculous theory..
The signals in question were known to have been faulty, this is what we have
been saying, but you have overlooked that in order to feather your own
discussion. Please David, read what is being said.

> 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?

It will come from Tony. I have an reasonable knowledge of safeworking systems,
and I feel a need to explain my stand.

How far should he excercise caution? Until he can be completely satisfied by
fact that it is safe to resume normal running. Entering another signalboxes
visual area is suitable.. ie: Contact Hornsby and ask where the train is.. if
the answer is "somewhere between you and us", it is not factual and therefore
not safe.

If the train was failing to trigger track circuits in front of the IU, then it
is not unreasonable to assume that the train may fail to trigger track circuits
all the way to Central (Sprinters could do a fair run without being detected..
and just go back and find out why this thread started.. because trains failed to
trigger track circuits..)

It is too late to revert back to a cautious state when you are about to sail
into the ass of the train in front..

If Hornsby could see it, then fine, he could give the exact location and the
driver could proceed, but cautiously..

Nowhere in the safeworking proceedures does it say that a driver may disregard
the rules for passing faulty signal if he believes it safe to do so. The rules
for defective signals are there, and to do otherwise is a breach of same.

Any questions??

> 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.

Fact is that I personally (and no I was not driving the train) would have been
looking a little deeper than my timetable. Why was the signal fluctuating, is
that a normal fault? When signals fail, they *generally* fail safe, ie to STOP
(don't get any safer than that..), but this signal couldn't make up its mind.. I
would be asking myself "Why?"

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

you cannot put a speed on "a speed of which you can stop short of an
obstruction".
If you encounter "A" faulty signal (at stop*usually*) then it is not
unreasonable to resume normal running once reaching the next fixed signal at
Proceed.

The point that gets missed in my opinion, is that the signal was defective, but
why was it jumping aspects??

A few minutes investigation *may* have made a difference, I won't say it would
have, as that is now the unknown.. but it couldn't hurt to try..

>
>
> 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
> >>
> >

--
Thanks,

Tony Gatt.

________________________________________________________

  Never be afraid to try something new.
  Remember, amateurs built the ark.
  Professionals built the Titanic.
________________________________________________________

Personal Website: http://homepages.tig.com.au/~baulko/
Railway Website:   http://www.railpage.org.au/railpix/
________________________________________________________