Re: Train Accident in Blue Mountains

["John Wayman" <trecker@optusnet.com.au>]

Half a dozen people have already been killed on Citylink in Melbourne. It is
acceptable for people to die on a road, but not on rail.

Makes you think

Cheers
John Wayman

David Johnson <trainman@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
384C9E0A.FFEC6B6E@ozemail.com.au">news:384C9E0A.FFEC6B6E@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/
>
>