Re: Signaller causes SPAD

[David Johnson <trainman@ozemail.com.au>]

signal_spotter@my-deja.com wrote:

> > What it does mean is that the scope for error by a signaller is much
> less
> > than for a driver.  Indeed trained monkeys could be employed as
> > signallers... |-)
> >
> > --
> > B.
> >
> Yes but could they play Nintendo in between trains. :-)
>
> Actually this reminds me of an amusing story. A couple of years ago I
> had my 20 year school reunion and I ran into an old friend who's
> brother was a signaller. Well a few ales later we were getting into a
> heated discussion about train detection. Apparently there was a near
> incident where a train nearly hit a loco. The reason was that the loco
> derailed and came completely off the tracks and therefore the track
> circuit picked back up. He was telling me that I should design into the
> system the ability to detect a train when it runs off the track. I then
> asked him, well what did your brother do when he suddenly lost the
> train from his panel. He said, "Nothing, he was asleep at the time."

It is possible with sequential clearing.  I think Cowan has it, moreso not to
lose trains due to sand on the track rather than derailment.

--
David Johnson
trainman@ozemail.com.au
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~trainman/
------------------------------------
These comments are made in a private
capacity and do not represent the
official view of State Rail.
C.O.W.S. Page 11.