Re: Glenbrook Driver cleared (newspaper article)

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

Finally something worthy of debate...

John MacCallum wrote:

> David Johnson wrote:
> *snip*
>
> The 2000 amendments did not apply when the accident occurred back
> in December.
>
> Here are some examples of how cut backs have contributed to the
> accident.
>
> 1. The Power Supply for the Signals which failed had not been inspected
> for over 3 years because of cut backs to staffing. These Systems
> would normally be inspected at least once a year in the past.
>
> This does not mean that the signal would not have failed but it points
> to a problem with staffing and maintenance in general.

Agreed. How may signals are run off the one power supply, and is it independent of the
track circuit supply?
Or was it the track circuit supply that failed causing the signal to "fail safe"?

> 2. David Johnson quotes above that he has not received the latest
> safeworking amendments for 2000. Why I ask? We in Freightcorp
> were given a one day school on the amendments months ago.
>
> Kevin Sinnet had not done a safe working refresher since before
> he had left Freightcorp some 3 years ago.

Does the Union not consider this an issue. I am sure that Workcover would consider it
an issue, they are deadly on anything that constitutes unsafe work practices..

> City Rail just hasn't made resources available to keep people
> current.
>
> 3. Technically there is no reason why Signallers should not know
> the location of a train in Automatic areas. The Indicator boards
> that keep coming up in discussions are a a furphy. The only reason
> we don't have a system that shows the location of every train is
> money. Interestingly the SRA and RSA are taking steps to rectify
> this.
> If the Indicator board had of still been at Glenbrook instead of
> in a Private Museum at Lure, there is no Guarantee that the SM
> at Glenbrook would have checked the board before giving the Right
> of Way handsignal.

Agreed again. He may not have been able to see where the IP was if the track circuits
were affected as well. That is assuming that the indicator board at Glenbrook would
stay live when the location is "switched out" to auto.

> If there had been a Computer based supervisory system that showed the
> location of all trains in Penrith Signal Box then the Signaller
> would have known where the Indian was.

He may have known. It would still not absolve signallers and crews of their
responsibilties to safety.
If the power supply failure affected several track circuits, the affected circuits
would show as occupied, and the signaller would only be aware that the train was
"somewhere ahead" in the affected area. The computer base would not be able to
accurately track the train through a series of 2 or 3 affected circuits.

The system would work under normal circumstances, and would be of great benefit to
signaller and crews, but unfortunately, the theory can never be used to ascertain
whether Glenbrook may have been prevented by its installation.

> Pope
>
> Alias   John MacCallum

--
Thanks,

Tony Gatt.

________________________________________________________

  How do I set my Laser printer to "Stun"?
________________________________________________________

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