>For all thoese people with PTC rule books could you please spare me 5 minutes
>of your time and tell me what rule 206 is and what the penlity is.
Well, there isn't any such a rule, as far as I can see.
>From 1907 to 1994, VR-V/Line used what was essentially the Railway
Clearing House standard rule book, with Australian modifications (The
Australasian Standard Railway Rule Book). So also did NSW, Tas, EBR,
WAGR. In this rule book, there WAS a rule 206, that concerned (if I
recall correctly) the procedures to be followed when shunting or
separating a train within station limits- mainly to do with
responsibilities for securing the train, by the guard.
However, in 1994, V/Line adopted a rule book, in which many of the
rules were modified (althought many were not) and combined with the
General Appendix. In the restructure, the old system of numbering was
done away with, so that the rule book consists of sections, with rules
numbered from 1 upward in each section. A rule would now be numbered
such as Section 6; rule 12. No section has as many as 206 rules.
"206" could mean 2.06 or 20.6, I suppose, but these don't appear to be
meaningful numbers.
The alternatives to explain why "rule 206" was refreed to in the
incident you raised last week are:
* There is a different rulebook in jursdiction on the PTC from that on
V/Line. I would be interested to hear if this is so, since I am
writing a monograph on railway rule books, and this would be news to
me. To have two different rule books on common-shared track would be
most unusual, I think.
* The person was referring to some other instruction, rule or
regulation in a different book (there is a distinct legal difference
in Victoria, but that's another story). It is possible, for instance,
that she/he was referring to a numbered regulation or instruction in a
book like the Underground rail loop manual (or some name like that).
But again, the number "206" does not seem to fit into that book.
* It was a bluff, designed to cower the person chastised.
Geoff Lambert