Re: Glenbrook Inquiry-The interim findings let us ignore the facts..

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

To keep the context of the 'debate', I have snipped nothing.

John MacCallum wrote:

> Tony Gatt wrote:
> >
> > Hello, John, still looking after the interests of your friends I see..
>
> Yes wouldn't you try to protect a friend from needless attack?

Yes, I would, but none of it yet has been attack (not like the comments passed
by bung727 anyway..)
The government gets attacked everyday in this forum, but in this case they
weren't there.. were they..

> > Still driving trains are you??
>
> Yes , still wanking are you?

I'm trying to hold serious debate here, and you're just being rude. First sign
of insecurity.

> > Let me quote from a news source:
> >
> > <quote>
> > Despite this evidence there is a clear tendency to steer the inquiry
> > towards finding that a major cause of the
> > crash was “driver error”. Under heavy cross-examination by Christopher
> > Barry QC, the counsel assisting the
> > inquiry, Sinnett admitted that he had mistakenly broken safety
> > regulations on the day of the accident by driving
> > with caution (about 42 km/hr) instead of “extreme caution” (about 20
> > km/h) after passing through the red light.
> > Even so, the inter-city train driver maintained he believed at the time
> > that he had followed regulations.
> > </quote>
>
> Kevin Sinnet believed that track to the next signal was clear from
> what he had been told by Control and the Penrith Signaller.

Yes, I noticed that, but the point being missed here is that the signals are
there to inform the driver of the circumstances. And neither the Penrith
Signaller nor control were at the actual point. KS was.

> > <quote>
> > During his examination of Sinnett, Barry produced the State Rail
> > regulations stating that “a driver must exercise
> > extreme caution when passing a signal at stop... and be prepared to stop
> > short of any obstruction.” “What I am
> > suggesting is that you did not do that on this occasion,” Barry said.
> > “On this occasion, no, I did not,” Sinnett
> > answered. However, even Justice McInerney later admitted that he was
> > concerned over the “ambiguous nature
> > of the regulations governing the procedures for red signals”.
> > </quote>
> >
> > Mistakenly broken safety regulations.. very unusual statement.
> >
> > Ambiguous nature of the regulations...
> >
> Yes SWUM 245 Passing Signals at Stop left it up to the Driver to
> decide what constituted Extreme Caution. This is what was ambiguous.
> They don't want trains crawling around the place at 10 kph or
> slower when they have passed a signal at stop this is why it is not
> specific.
> Remember On Time Running!

So common sense gives way to the almighty dollar...

> > Common sense says:
> > Red - Stop
>
> Very good I'll try and remember that!

I'd hoped you would..

> > Cant see round the corner - slow down
>
> Train Drivers don't slow down because they can't see where they are
> going. If they did trains would not be able to maintain a realistic
> timetable. Ever tried driving a car at 80 or 100 kph in dense fog?

Nice try, but not the same. (the reason why I have not gone into traffic light
indications - they are not relevant)

A train, unlike a car, is on rails, with no deviating room. The signals
indicate the condition of the track ahead, and if the signal indication is
Green, the the condition of the track would be ... clear.
This was not a wrong side failure however.. the signal was at stop, and the
main reason 99.9% of the time is because its unsafe to proceed. But, lets just
use the word failure, and automatically, all responsibility is gone..

I have travelled on a pass in the cab (legally) in Victoria during a dense
Western fog.

> > Don't know why the signal was red - be careful.
> >
>
> He was told the Signal was a failure.

It still doesn't relieve the driver of the responsibilty. What your implying
is that fault lies with someone else. I never said the signaller was innocent
either..

> > Lets hope that something worthwhile and lifesaving comes from all of
> > this.
>
> Yes that the SRA, RAC, City Rail and the RSA get their bloody acts
> together!

So until then, drive on?? I hope its with caution when you do..

> > Lets hope you remember your prayers the next time you pass a red
> > signal....
>
> Prayers won't do a heathen like me any good. I'll just make sure I
> delay as many trains as possible by making sure I can stop short of
> any obstruction!
> Let me see I think a safe speed for a 4200 tonne coal train in that
> situation would be between 0 and 3 kph.

Oh dear, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit..

I only have 2 further things to say:

1) Your employer reads this newsgroup. I'm sure they would appreciate your
views on Safeworking.
2) I think that whilst your driving coal trains, the travelling public are 50%
safer than if you were in control of a passenger train.

> Wank well Tony!

For someone who is trying to put across a good point, your doing it in such
childish style.

> Pope
>
> Alias   John MacCallum

Is there anyone out there that could hold a "reasonable" debate without
dropping to snivelling little personal comments?

Please come forth..

--
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/
________________________________________________________