Re: "lost" trains

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

Tony Gatt wrote in message <387322EB.4F95FDBC@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.

That is totally incorrect. How many faulty signals did the driver see? This
has not been established. It cannot be established, since he only reported
the one signal.

Based on that, it is not unreasonable to assume that, once he found a signal
that was NOT fluctuating (which was the fault that he reported for the first
signal), he found conditions to be normal again. Once he found them to be
normal, he could resume normal operations.

But the theory that you, and RNS, and a number of others, have been
espousing, is that he should have been operating under caution anyway. The
question that I want answered is how far should a driver take this? One
signal operating at what appears to be normal? Two? Three? Ten? Twenty? All
the way to Central?

Where is the line drawn?

>> 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.

And I have consulted a Sydney based interurban driver for all of my posts
(my mobile phone bill will confirm it) - he would also have a reasonable
knowledge of NSW safeworking systems too.

>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??

Yes - if a driver had not been advised that a signal was faulty, and he had
no reason to suspect that it was faulty, BUT the preceeding signal was
faulty, should he assume that that signal was faulty? In other words, does
one faulty signal make all signals after it also faulty? Sort of a "guilty
by association" theory?

I reckon that he should not regard a signal as faulty *just* because the
precedding signal was faulty. Neither do the railways, as it happens,
otherwise they would provide for it in their rules.

>> 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?"

But you have an intense interest in safeworking. The driver in question
didn't. He did what he was required to do. He found a faulty signal, he
stopped, he received authority to pass the signal exercising caution (in
compliance with the regulations), he came across another signal which was
acting normally, he had no reason to stop and receive further authority.

I agree, anyone who knows anything about signalling systems would ask the
questions you are asking. But there is a difference between knowing about
signalling systems and knowing about safeworking. The former are operations
staff, the latter are signal engineers.

I would not expect drivers and guards to know how a signalling system
operated. I would expect them to know the appropriate rules to operate
through that system safely, but I would not expect them to know anything
more (although it would be a bonus).

I believe that what you are suggesting the driver should have done amounts
to that bonus. The rules do not provide for the driver to start presuming
why the signal was failing and to make judgements based on that presumption.
They tell him what to do at each faulty signal that he comes across.

He did exactly that, and no more could have been expected of him, unless you
want to expand his responsibilities, and give him further training regarding
signalling systems, which would not be a bad thing, IMNSHO, although you
could not apply this judgement to the driver of the Cowan Bank IU train.

Dave