Re: Train Accident in Blue Mountains

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@sd5.mailbank.com>]

Bill Bolton wrote in message ...
>"Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.umpires.com> wrote:
>
>> Except that it *may* have served as a reminder to the driver that he was
>> passing a red signal, and he *may* have been travelling a bit slower
>
>Since we don't know what speed the train was travelling as yet, though
>all the circumstantial evidence points to it being low, that's really
>immaterial at this time.

You are doing a lot of "non-posting"'s here Bill - jumping out and saying
"we don't know yet".

I know that we do not know, and I know that we do not have enough
information. I am not speculating as to the *specific* causes of the
accident.

All I am doing (and I mentioned this in m.t.r.a-nz and you did not come
respond) was that I think that the signalling system is unsafe because there
are no train stops. Train stops improve safety (if they don't, wy are they
all ovewr Sydney and Melbourne) so to not have them on the Illawarra, Blue
Mountains and Mental Coast reduces the level of safety. Having a level of
safety that is less than what is possible makes it unsafe.

I have been up the front with drivers who have tripped through signals
(mainly early in the morning, coming out of places like Port Kembla, etc.)
and the very fact that they have tripped serves as a reminder that they are
subject to certain restrictions. Being trained in safeworking, they should
not require these reminders, but being humans, they do.

Now, without speculating about the speed of the train, etc., it is obvious
to me that if the driver was going slower than he was, he *may* have had
time to stop, or, at the very least, slow down to minimise the impact.
Tripping through a signal *might* have served to slow the train down,
particularly since the train had stopped at Glenbrook station, and would
have (presumably - notice, a presumption here) have received authority to
pass the signal before leaving the station. Tripping through the signal
*might* have meant that it would take extra time for the driver to reach the
speed that the train was at at the time of collision - thus, the speed that
the train was at when the driver spotted the I-P would have been lower, and
the impact *could* have been avoided or the impact reduced.

None of the above is meant to be critical of the driver, it is more meant as
a criticism of a signalling system that has safety devices fitted to the
trains, but without the corresponding trackside equipment.

Dave