Re: Signaller causes SPAD

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

antstig@my-deja.com wrote:

> In article <8pmatk$5p51@inetbws1.citec.com.au>,
>   "Peter Dwyer" <peter.dwyer@qr.com.au> wrote:
> Antstig wrote:
> SNIP
> > > Where I come from we regard a signal passed at danger as a signal
> > > passed at danger regardless of whose fault it is.
>
> Peter wrote:
> SNIP
> > Yes, but if a signal is passed at danger because the signal restores
> in the
> > face of the driver,
> > we call it a RIFOT (restored in the face of train).
>
> RIFOT = ROTFL!
>
> >Some people here keep
> > thinking that the
> > signaller is the primary cause of this. Non signalling people of
> course :-)
>
> I can only speak for my company but in the vast majority of cases
> signals thrown (I prefer the word "thrown" to the cosy neutral
> "restored") back in the face of the driver are the signallers fault.
> Even they wouldn't have the nerve to concoct a story that the signal
> mysterioulsy went back on its own accord, of course that could happen
> as a signal is failing when a driver is approaching it thus causing him
> to hit it, but it is rare.

At Sutherland, built 1939, there is no monitoring of the signaller's actions. A
couple of months ago, the signaller threw the road back in front of a driver,
then reported the driver for going through a red signal.  The signaller denied
throwing it back.

--
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.