Re: [NSW] - SMH reporting on Cityrail 15/9/2000

["Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au>]

<antstig@my-deja.com> wrote in message 8q2d3g$b57$1@nnrp1.deja.com">news:8q2d3g$b57$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39c34698$0$26533$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>,
>   "Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>
> SNIP
> > I disagree. If a train had passed the signal at the end of the Olympic
> > platform by a few feet, that is not serious. In fact most SPADS are
> not
> > serious.
>
> Sorry Tezza, I disagree. All SPADs are serious because as I've already
> pointed out the sudden jolt as the train is tripped could injure
> someone old or disabled or even someone not expecting it.

No different to using emergency at any other time.


> Once you pass
> a signal at danger you set in motion a chain of events that could
> potentially end in something very serious if procedures are not carried
> out properly.

Once the signal has been passed, procedure is fairly irrelevant. Once the
signal has been passed, not following procedure will usually just keep
things moving, as most SPADS are not serious, which is why procedure is
often ignored and the SPAD is not reported.

>
> "Applying the Rule" as signals at danger is only carried out in the
> event of signal failure or when it is imperative to get a train's nose
> into a platform in order to detrain platforms during major delays. It
> is also used by trains assisting defective trains.


You want to try re-writing this to make more sense please?