Re: [NSW] Collision at Cronulla?

[craigd@lios.apana.org.au (C. Dewick)]

facetious@my-deja.com writes:

>In article <391cb4f7@newshost.pcug.org.au>,
>  "David Bennetts" <davibenn@pcug.org.au> wrote:

>> One would think that CityRail might learn from their mistakes

>CityRail banned reversing at Cronulla and Waterfall, so not their fault.

They banned it because management are unable to understand how it can work
*to their* benefit to expedite movements if the scheduling has gone out the
window due to other problems elsewhere, however this has nothing to do with
the Cronulla incident.

I'm fully aware of what happened, and since I was a driver at Cronulla depot
for 4 years before transferring to Waterfall depot, I know exactly the
location of the incident...

>> it would be wiser than reversing blind for the
>> driver to
>> take a walk down to the rear cab so he/she could see where it was
>> going.

>He doesn't need to see where he is going if the guard is doing her job
>right.  She is the driver's eyes.

Wrong - the driver is *still* responsible for making sure the correct signal
indication is displayed, and that single action would have prevented the
incident at Cronulla from taking place. The guard does not replace the
driver's responsibility to be aware of the route which is set, but the guard
should still be aware of the signal indications and what they mean before
triggering the driver's actions to move the train with a 'set back' bell
signal.

And regardless of whether or not propelling is permitted at Cronulla (since
that's a moot point now), if it is true that the driver was told he was
going to shunt into the loop via the main line, then into the goods siding,
that does take away a small ammount of the responsibility since he was
acting on instructions from the signaller, and if other events had not taken
place in the ensuing minutes prior to the guard belling him back, the train
would not have moved onto the storage road but back out onto the main line.

However, as usual it's not that any single thing was done wrongly, but the
whole process of what happened prior to the instant of the collision was
flawed, as with any other process which happens regularly, by familiarity.
It doesn't matter how much regulatory pressure is brought to bear, since
regulations alone do not change the culture.

I know what the 'conventions' are at Cronulla - no point spelling them out
in detail. Every depot has it's ways of doing things which make the job more
'friendly' and in hindsight most of these are technically pretty risky
breaches of safety if you want to apply the regulations 100 percent. The
trouble is that incentives to *always* do things the safest way are not
there, and State Rail management's answer of chucking 5+ percent pay rises
at us helps zippo because who cares what we get paid when the backup in
terms of improved working conditions (not higher rates of pay) and help when
it's needed is usually not afforded to us.

In the main, we only get feedback from management if something goes wrong,
and when things go very wrong (like the Cronulla smash) the feedback is
extremely negative, but often for partly justified reasons.

There have been very rare occasions when individuals have received personal
positive feedback, but that's very much the exception rather than the rule.
So do you really expect everyone to be all happy-happy-joi-joi to do things
by the regulations (or a different way which is safer) 100 percent of the
time? 8-)

Regards,

Craig.

--
            Craig Ian Dewick            |       Stand clear - jaws closing
 Send email to craigd@lios.apana.org.au |  Visit my Australian rail transport
   Professional Train Driver, Cityrail  |      and rail modelling web site:
       and HO scale rail modeller       |   http://lios.apana.org.au/~craigd