Re: Train Accident in Blue Mountains

[Richard <richard_snook@primus.com.au>]

Good to see someone coming at this from the event in reverse scenario...ie despite what anyone "SAYS" let the evidence
speak...as at Granville it will cut through the hearsay .
One event , ten onlookers, ten stories...only one set of facts!!
The media, is practically irrelevent...they have no specialised understanding, and they weren't there!!
Indeed as you allude the evidence will be there for the trained eye to detect.
The only thing one can safely assume, is it ,like many things might not be what it seems on first glance.
At the end of the day, seven died in what may have been an avoidable situation, then again the facts and evidence may
reveal a different story.
If a picture tells a 1000 words..999 say it didnt hit at 10kph!!

cheers >:~)) Richard

Rod Gayford wrote:
> 
> The amount of damage that occurred would seem to indicate the V set was not
> doing say 10 KPH. What speed do the rules say the V set should have been
> doing after being given permission to pass the red signal? I do corporate
> criminal investigations for a living and I have a good idea of the relevant
> evidence to seek in an investigation. All investigations follow a set
> procedure. The train driver might say he is doing X speed but the available
> evidence may indicate he/she was doing more or less.  You could probably
> reconstruct the scene and work out how long it took the driver to drop the
> controls and get from the cab to at least the bottom deck plus a bit of time
> for reaction. There would probably be evidence on the rails where the trains
> brakes came on. The time and skid marks would provide evidence of the speed.
> Its all just common sense stuff, not rocket science. But the investigator
> has to be prepared to give the evidence he collects under oath.
> 
> Cheers
> Rod Gayford
> Bill Bolton <billboltonREMOVE-TO-EMAIL@computer.org> wrote in message
> u3ih4sgp9ffif2rekil7486kes3l2grfk6@4ax.com">news:u3ih4sgp9ffif2rekil7486kes3l2grfk6@4ax.com...
> > "Rod Gayford" <rjaygee@smartchat.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, how come the V set hit at 50 KPH
> >
> > How do you know it hit at 50kph?
> >
> > There appears to be no direct information at all as to speed of
> > impact, while the available circumstantial evidence points to a much
> > lower speed at the point of impact.
> >
> > > If Glenbrook station was manned at that time surely the station
> > > staff could have told the driver of the V set that the IP had just left
> at a
> > > crawl or is that not their job.
> >
> > From published reports to date, the situation appears to be:
> >
> > 1. The IC train preceeding the IP went through the area under normal
> > signal operation, with no problem.
> >
> > 2. The IP drive found a red signal just east of Glenbrook at Red and
> > called Penrith signal box, which has no direct control or monitoring
> > over the signal.
> >
> > 3. Penrith signal box advised the signal was an apparent failure and
> > to proceed under the rules governing those conditions.
> >
> > 4, The IP driver found the next signal #40.6 also at Red, but was
> > unable to contact the signal box by the signal phone or by mobile
> > phone.  He waited one minute and had just started to move off at low
> > speed.
> >
> > 5. The driver of the IC train found at a red signal just east of
> > Glenbrook at Red and called Penrith signal box.
> >
> > 6. Penrith signal box avised the signal was an apparent failure and to
> > proceed under the rules governing those conditions.
> >
> > From the information published to date it there is nothing to say
> > whether or not they told the IC driver that another train had
> > previously passed the signal under the same conditions.  They had no
> > way of knowing that the IP had found the signal in advance at Red at
> > that time.
> >
> > > A bit of commonsense and discretion is called for.
> >
> > As in posting messages,
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >