Re: Glenbrook Collision

[The Narc <gonoNOCRAP@bigpond.com>]

On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 23:34:13 GMT, Michael <mk@netstra.com.au> wrote:

>I believe that it's too early to come to this sort of conclusion. 
>Ultimately this may most likely be the cause, however I think for the 
>moment we have to focus on what the primary cause of the accident was. I 
>choose not to speculate whatsoever, this is for the independant enquiry, 
>but to blame cut backs and lack of funding as the primary cause is like 
>saying, that the rain is the cause of me getting wet in a waterproof house, 
>that has a faulty roof. (okay, not exactly the best analogy).
>
>I will however conclude in saying, that I believe if the car carrier had 
>some sort of flat plate on the back, it wouldn't have sliced to deep into 
>the V set. Think about it, try cutting butter with a knife, then try 
>cutting butter with a spoon (flat). Had the V set run into the back of the 
>power car on the IP and not the car carrier, the damage may not have been 
>as severe. I am not however an engineer, so I can't validate my claim at 
>all (i.e, disclaimer).
>
SNIP
are you suggesting that we have special rear cars on every train on
the off chance that they are rear ended????
You are probably correct that the car wagon is one of the worst wagons
to hit BUT there are logistic reasons for its placement on the rear of
the IP.
regards
Regards Paul Johnston (MNRC)