Re: "lost" trains

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

RNS wrote in message ...
>
>
>The regulation is that after passing a signal at stop a driver should
>proceed at caution for the next two signals. Caution is described as a
>speed to enable stopping short of any obstruction.

First I have ever heard about any regulation like that. Granted, I am not
qualified in safeworking, so perhaps you could provide the regulation, and I
will go and look it up in a friends safeworking manual.

Dave

>On Tue, 4 Jan 2000 21:43:43 +1100, "Dave Proctor"
><thadocta@spambait.dingoblue.net.au> 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?
>>
>>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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>