Re: Glenbrook accident [NSW]

["Ronald BESDANSKY" <ronbest@bigpond.com>]

C. Dewick <craigd@lios.apana.org.au> wrote in message
82engr$il1$1@lios.apana.org.au">news:82engr$il1$1@lios.apana.org.au...
> In <8Zj24.5181$5K1.21363@newsfeeds.bigpond.com> "Ronald BESDANSKY"
<ronbest@bigpond.com> writes:
>
> >Can someone pls post a verbatim copy of the rule (from the current Rule
> >Book) for passing signals at stop?
>
> If you really want to know... I'll see if I can locate it. The location of
> the accident at Glenbrook is in a double-line automatic section, but I
> believe Glenbrook station still has emergency crossovers, etc. for track
> maintenance work and the like, so I'd need an accurate signal diagram to
say
> anything for sure.
>
> However, assuming all the signals which the driver of the urban saw were
> operating in auto mode, the relevant rule is SWU-245, which is titled
> "Passing an Automatic Signal at Stop - Automatic and Track Control
> (Bi-directional)".
>
> Specifically for the case at hand, the relevant section of SWU-245 is
> section C, which is sub-titled "To pass an Automatic Signal at Stop", and
it
> goes into a page and half of what to do depending whether there's a
> handsignaller at the signal or not. With a handsignaller it's easy - just
> wait for him/her to display a *caution* handsignal and that's it.
>
> It is still a requirement to proceed with caution (at a speed which is
> appropriate for the location, conditions, etc.) until the second
full-clear
> signal is sighted before resuming normal track speed.
>
> If there's no handsignaller it depends on whether there's a train stop and
> whether or not the train has trip gear... In the case of Glenbrook, there
> are no train stops, so *all* trains stopped at any automatic signals have
to
> phone the signaller for instructions, then act accordingly.
>
Any idea why it matters if there's a train stop or not? I can't see what
difference that makes.

Also, how can a signaller give permission to the driver  to pass a signal at
'stop' when the signaller does not know the current location of the previous
train? Aren't we reverting to 'time interval' working, which was abolished
around 1850?

I can see an outcome of this incident being a ban on passing signals at stop
unless the line can be asceratined to be clear to the next signal by sight.
Even if the previous train has been reported passing the next signal, there
is no gurantee it hasn't left a vehicle in the section. (There is still the
possibility of a broken rail). Otherwise, absolute telephone block has to be
instituted.

Was Lapstone attended at the time of the accident? How long would it have
taken to get someone qualified in safeworking to Lapstone to institute
telephone block?

Was it worth the risk involved to send the Intercity into the section, even
if it meant waiting for the IP to be reported passing Emu Plains complete?

Perhaps any delay would have been more acceptable if the passengers on the
Intercity were kept fully informed of what was going on? Something along the
lines of "due to signal failure, it will be necessary for this train to wait
at Glenbrook until the train in front has arrived at Emu Plains. Your safety
is our absolute priority". Perhaps this is politically-unacceptable
daydreaming.

Rgds

Ron BESDANSKY