Re: Glenbrook Collision

["Hoges" <pghogan@NOSPAMbigpond.com>]

Bill Bolton <billboltonREMOVE-TO-EMAIL@computer.org> wrote in message
vnte4s45mb8q8rl7a5a6j5k3hadgi79c6e@4ax.com">news:vnte4s45mb8q8rl7a5a6j5k3hadgi79c6e@4ax.com...
> The Narc <gonoNOCRAP@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > are you suggesting that we have special rear cars on every train on
> > the off chance that they are rear ended????
>
> Hey what an idea, I think there may even be a special (original typo
corrected) name appropriate
> for that purpose..... "guards vans"
>

Out of interest, the rule that applied following the Cowan Bank collision in
1990, that (to my knowledge) is still applicable when using wooden vehicles
in NSW , is to provide a "cover" vehicle between the rear of the train and
the last vehicle conveying passengers.

 In the case of the RTM's DUB Set 63 (end platform cars) this is usually the
VHO. If a cover vehicle is not available, the last car is closed off, with
no passengers booked. This was intended to protect the passengers on the
front train from rear end collision - it doesn't provide any protection for
the one behind. (Circular logic here - the system should be safe enough to
ensure that we don't have rear-end collisions, therefore the cover vehicle
is unnecessary, but risk management says we shouldn't expose passengers in
the last car to the danger of rear end collision.  Confusing?)

Regards,

Paul