Re: Granville Accident 1977

[brett.fitzpatrick@employment.gov.au]

In article <3507A323.634AD52B@ozemail.com.au>,
  vaughan.williamson@tafensw.edu.au wrote:
>
> I have been asked to do another posting on behalf of Vaughan Williamson.  It
> follows:
>
> snip
>
> Without recalling who said what in the various posts, I would not
> have been surprised if blame could have gone higher than P.R Shirley.
> It is just that the historical evidence from Gunn, Fraser and
> contemporary accounts point us at Shirley. When there was a comment
> about blame never going past the crews etc in most events, we must
> ask about the level of justice that applies. More anon. The safety of
> timber bodied coaching stock has come up. Can I suggest that safety
> in railways is far more dependent upon the design and upkeep of the
> overall infrastructure viz signalling and trackwork etc rather than
> the design of carriages. Rolling stock is not built like a
> modern car where samples are crash tested for occupant safety! I don't
> want to press the point, but our preservation societies rely
> heavily on timber bodied (and framed) carriages. It would be a great
> pity if the view was taken that the stock was intrinsically unsafe
> and should be banned. One could only guess about what the upshot of
> that view would be. Just think of the less than modern crash standards
> of vintage cars. Should they be off the road? And what of vintage
> aircraft, including the wood, wire and fabric copies?
> Personally, I don't have any difficulties in riding in timber bodied
> carriages, but I can appreciate that the experience of seeing problems
> could well influence others' opinions on the matter.
>
>absolutely @#$% HUGE SNIP!
>
> Regards,
>
> Vaughan Williamson
> Teacher of Electrical Engineering, Wollongong TAFE
>
> e-mail: vaughan.williamson@tafensw.edu.au
>
>

I have to agree with Vaughan's comments on the relative safety of timber
constructed passenger coaches.

He is correct in saying that neither they nor any coaches constructed from
alternative materials are designed to withstand such accidents.

His comparison with vintage aircraft and cars is quite valid.

Aircraft constructed from "wood, wire & fabric" don't appear to have the
condemnation that some people are attempting to attach to timber bodied
passenger coaches, yet they are under a much higher level of stress.

Restored vintage cars can be fully registered, as long as they comply with
the relevant rules/construction from their year of origin. This means that
they don't need seat-belts etc which most people take for granted nowadays.
Older cars (generally pre-1938) have a sheetmetal body nailed to a timber
frame, yet they aren't villified like timber passenger coaches. They don't
need to be upgraded to meet current ADR at all, unlike timber passnger
coaches which (in NSW at least) need to have anti-telescoping bars fitted
(where built on a steel underframe) before they can be registered by the DOT.

"Modern" construction materials/methods don't really assure passenger safety.

Those who would hound the timber bodied passenger coach should look to
accidents involving road coaches to see that a metal frame 7 body doesn't
assure passenger survivability.

Like Vaughan, I quite like travelling in timber bodied/framed passenger
coaches. I feel that they are as safe as their steel/aluminium/stainless
steel counterparts. Look to Rockdale 1940 for steel's supposed safety.


Brett Fitzpatrick

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