Re: Derailment at Concort West - Reason

["Michael Walker" <walker@hotkey.net.au>]

>I never flame or post obscenity, Michael.
>
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you in particular but you must admit that some
posters to this group have shown a willingness to do such things on topics
they feel particularly strongly about. I don't agree with it either but at
the same time I could see some taking my comments personally when that was
never intended.

>You should work for Tranz Rail. That was their attitude. So why did it
happen
>again? In my view, a more modern and satisfactory approach is to consider
the
>organisational and human factors involved in accidents, and to reshape
systems
>and adopt practices that minimise the likelihood of human error.
>
>The most important work in this area in recent years has been undertaken by
>Professor James Reason of University of Manchester. His book "Human Error"
was
>published in 1990, and he has recently published another called (I think,
but I
>have lent my copy out) "Managing the Risks of Organisational Accidents".
>Excellent reading.
>
>I notice another post to this message points out that it is not a good idea
to
>place a low speed turnout in a main line. I totally agree. This design
principle
>recognises the possibility of human error, and alters the system so that
the
>consequences of an error are reduced. Good thinking.
>
Thank you for the recommended reading, I shall try and chase up these books
for a read (I am guessing not quick read!). 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.