Re: [Melb] Footscray crash - 3 injured

[usenet.spam@gunzel.net (Michael)]

OgO <quentisl@leaves.qjc.cjb.net> wrote in article 
<Xns90B88B2699DC6ogo1mynxwowaustcom@203.109.250.24>:

>I was wondering: Wouldn't (one of) the trains have gone through 
>a red signal?  and, what happens when a train goes through a red 
>signal - I thought that it tripped the trains brakes, or at the 
>very least set off alarms and things.  I'm just curious.

So many variables involved. I have no idea what the cause was (just to make 
that known), that's for the investigation to decide. 

a) Faulty signals - likelyhood as far as I'm aware is quite low. Could be a 
wrong light indication (in which case the train would trip), could be a 
faulty trip arm (in which case the driver would have seen the red 
indication), could have been both (faulty track circuit?).

b) Regulation 74 - the regulation that allows a train to proceed from an 
automatic signal at stop after a predefined time, I think it's 30 seconds. 
This regulation also requires the driver to drive at a speed where (s)he 
can stop short of any obstruction. The second set running empty cars to 
Newport hence would had to have stopped at the signal prior for 30 seconds, 
trip past it, and continue at a safe speed. Regulation 74 also isn't valid 
at home signals.

c) Assuming regulation 74, the train could have had faulty brakes, the 
driver could have misjudged a safe speed, may not have seen the train in 
the platform (it is on a curve so it is possible), may not have been paying 
attention, or a myriad of other things.

People (and especially the media) are always quick to place a blame on 
something and sticking to it, without knowing the variables that would have 
contributed to it. What we do know is, that Bayside Trains certainly didn't 
want it to happen, and we can be reasonably sure that the driver really 
didn't want it to happen.

M.

-- 
(To email me just remove ".spam" off my email address).

Whip me, Beat me, just don't Windows ME