Re: Granville Accident 1977

[keithm@happy.dca.gov.au (Keith Malcolm)]

In article <6eammq$rcf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> brett.fitzpatrick@employment.gov.au writes:
>From: brett.fitzpatrick@employment.gov.au
>Subject: Re: Granville Accident 1977
>Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:21:25 -0600


>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.

I don't think you do need anti-telescoping bars to be fitted unless they are 
to carry passengers in the trailing car, though I believe there are exeptions.
I am a member of ARHS ACT and we have just registered our 4 car end platform 
set with out the bars. you can even run them with out gates if you don't allow 
passengers to travel between cars. 

David Malcolm


>Brett Fitzpatrick

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