Re: [NSW]-Question about signal phones

[signal_spotter@my-deja.com]

In article <3a4199e1$0$7491$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>,
  "Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>
> "Eddie Oliver" <eoliver@efs.mq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:3A40A592.7C66A69E@efs.mq.edu.au...
> > To return to serious discussion about this:
> >
> > There is no safeworking rule or signal design rule which links the
> > positioning of signal phones to the type of the signal (in NSW).

That's the reason why I asked for feedback from the 'relevant' people
in the first place. To see if there was a rule. I hadn't come across
anything written down.

> > People
> > asserting the existence of such a rule are evidently drawing false
> > conclusions from observations of what is generally the case in some
> > areas, or they have been indoctrinated by someone else who had been
> > falsely exposed to such a notion.
> >
> > It is true that in many areas, most (sometimes even all) home
signals
> > have the associated phones on separate posts.
>
> Have *never* seen otherwise.
>
> > But this is not because
> > there is a direct "rule" requiring this. In most such areas, it is
> > evidently simply because the phones in the interior of the
interlocked
> > area are connected to a yard telephone circuit, and most yard
telephones
> > are on separate posts.
>
> That's an even more useless reason.
>
> > There may also be other reasons, notably occupational health and
safety
> > reasons such as not putting a phone where someone might clobber
their
> > head on other hardware (like extra lights on the signal) while
using the
> > phone.
>
> They certainly didn't care about OH&S when they placed the original
phones.
>
> > And of course since signal-spotter told us in his original
> > posting that he tries to implement the non-existent rule, it will
become
> > a self-fulfilling prophecy where he is involved.

On the contrary. As a contractor it is in my interest to mount *every*
phone on the signal post. That saves a lot of money as I don't have to
mount a separate post or cabling. And all I can follow are the SRA
Standard Specifications which are gospel. So if it's written in there I
have to do it, if it's not then great.

> >
> > It seems extraordinarily unfortunate that people will invent
supposed
> > rules which don't actually exist, and then these non-rules may get a
> > status which they don't deserve
>
> Who are you to say it wasn't a rule when they started installing the
phones? I
> suggest to talk to someone at Petersham and Delec.
>
> > (and which may even be dangerous when
> > people erroneously apply the non-rules, as could happen in this
context
> > if a driver uses the non-rule to identify a signal type
incorrectly).
>
> What an absurd statement.
>
> > As a general safety issue, I (and all the safeworking and signal
people I
> > have discussed this case with in the last couple of days) plead that
> > people deal with the rules that do exist and don't go creating or
> > accepting new "unwritten" ones.
>
> Anything I stated on the matter was not new, but had been around for
decades.
>
> > Question for people who like such challenges: Name a signal which
has
> > been in the news over the last year or so, and which is an immediate
> > counterexample to the proposition that automatic signals have the
phone
> > on the signal post.
>
> I suppose you're talking about Glenbrook, but as I haven't been up
that way
> for several years now, I can't comment on that particular signal. As
I said
> before, every rule the railways has, has an exception.
>
>


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/