Re: "lost" trains

[billboltonREMOVE-TO-EMAIL@computer.org (Bill Bolton)]

Tony Gatt <baulko@tig.com.au> wrote:

> If the train was failing to trigger track circuits in front of the IU

Which only became know after the accident.  It a complete canard to
suggest that could have been reasonably known at the time by anyone in
the vicinity.

> 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??

Why do you keep failing to acknowledge the *two* signals beyond the
signal with the fluctuating indication which were not giving any
appearence of being faulty?

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

<sigh> It was not the signal which was "defective", it was the track
circuit.... that's the point you seem to be missing.

Bill