Re: Derailment at Concord West-Personal Opinion

[Tony Gatt <kevchris@cybertune.com.au>]

>  I also agree with the comments
> about design of points on mainlines. However, maybe something else which
> could be done is that which occurred in Victoria during the introduction of
> SPOT. Lit turnout indications were added to signals just before the points
> in question. Whilst the distance in Victoria would be too little for the
> situation in question (they are placed on the signal controlling the
> turnout), maybe a 'distant' turnout indication would be of some use.

the only difference in Melbourne is that a Medium Speed indication implies a
speed of which the points can sufficiently handle (I believe it is 25 km/h). If
a set of points is capable of a higher speed on the turnout, then any signal
indicating Medium speed before them, has an Illuminated speed indicator
informing the Driver of a "higher" speed for the points.

If a train is to take a siding movement of any form then a "low speed" signal is
provided. (R/R/Y). Such a signal CANNOT be illuminated until a time delay has
elapsed that would assume the train has been sufficiently 'slowed' to take the
points.

IMHO, providing signals with "direction indicators", just lulls the drivers into
a false sense of security. How easy could it be to blame an "ill nformed
inanimate object" for lack of concentration? How much information should a
signal contain? If you provide a signal with too much information, then you have
to change its name to a "train order".



--
---------------------------------------
"Indecision is the key to flexibility"

Tony Gatt.

Homepage:
http://www.cybertune.com.au/~kevchris

Mailto:kevchris@cybertune.com.au or
   tony_g_1@hotmail.com

---------------------------------------