Re: Train Accident in Blue Mountains

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

Having followed this thread to date , most of the speculation assumes that
the speed of the interurban, ( whatever that is eventually proved to be) was
too fast to prevent the driver stopping short of the rear of the IP , given
the sighting distance around the curve.

However this assumes normal braking ability of the set in question.
Hypothetically (and I stress this is purely speculation) , how does your
scenario change if the driver *was* proceeding at what he believed to be a
cautious speed , but then found he was unable to stop the train in the given
distance on a falling grade due to failing brakes or air pressure?

It is certainly not unknown for some Intercity V sets to be in less than
peak mechanical condition, and many people have witnessed or experienced
"overshoots" at platforms and signals, although usually with the additional
factor of wet rails, which was not an issue here.

The enquiry should reveal all of the (sometimes random) factors which
usually act in combination to cause a disaster. Without knowledge of all of
the mechanical, physical and human factors involved, most of the "probable"
cause theories are suspect at this point.

Regards,

Paul

Bill Bolton <billboltonREMOVE-TO-EMAIL@computer.org> wrote in message
05fp4skf21hdr75d9dikaibhc25opodm4r@4ax.com">news:05fp4skf21hdr75d9dikaibhc25opodm4r@4ax.com...
> Tony Gatt <baulko@tig.com.au> wrote:
>
> > and for that fact.. you too are unaware of what really took place..
> > the evidence points at it not being low enough to avoid impact.
therefore
> > making it too fast.
>
> I've already specifically commented that the speed, whatever it turns
> out to be, *may* well have been too fast for the circumstances.  I'm
> just pointing out there is no circumstantial evidence *at all* to
> support the figures of 50 kmh and 60 kmh that some posters have been
> using.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
>