Re: Train Articles

[daproc@bigfoot.com]

In article <6l52gi$51j4@atbhp.corpmel.bhp.com.au>,
  "Chris Stratton" <stratton.chris.cp@bhp.com.au> wrote:

> >Wasn't it a car on the tracks?
> >
> Yes, the train hit a car on the tracks and then crashed into a road
> overbridge.

It seems that everyone missed my point - regardless of whether there was a
car on the tracks or not (and it now transpires that the car got there AFTER
the derailment) the horrific loss of life was due to the bridge crashing on
the train - if this had been one of the high-speed lines, rather than one of
the "classic" lines (as I pointed out in my earlier posting - again, missed
by some!) there would have been a greater distance between the train and the
abutment, and the decking on the bridge would have been signifigantly higher
- the bridge would also have been engineered to a much higher standard	- the
train may still have derailed, but the bridge would not have collapsed on top
of it, thereby saving countless lives.

Hope this helps,

David "The Doctor" Proctor

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading