Re: Train Accident in Blue Mountains

[David Johnson <trainman@ozemail.com.au>]

Dave Proctor wrote:

> So you are saying that it is not the case that reducing the level of safety
> from what is possible makes for an unsafe system? If a level of safety is
> possible, anything less than that is unacceptable.

100 tracks side by side al the way from Lithgow to Sydney would have all trains
on separated tracks, making a collision impossible, and therefore safe.
"Anything less than that is unacceptable".  Seriously, a line has to be drawn
between cost effectiveness and level of safety.  The system we have now is
inherently safe.  There is not much room for economical improvement.  Anybody
who feels that there is no way to put a price on human lives, can feel free to
suggest ways to make the railways safer, and how much their idea would cost, thn
look at the state budget.

> So let me get this straight. A train that trips through a signal 30 m from
> the end of the platform, and travels 5 to 10 metres after tripping through,
> therefore coming to a complete stand 35 to 40 metres from the end of the
> platform, will be travelling at the same speed a few hundred metres further
> down the track as a train that was constantly accelerating from the time it
> left the platform. Yeah, right......

The train would not have been constantly accelerating after leaving the
platform.  It would have been coasting most of the way, as the gradient is 1 in
60 downgrade.


--
David Johnson
trainman@ozemail.com.au
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~trainman/