Re: Glenbrook..... What was said?

[Tony Gatt <baulko@tig.com.au>]

Jack wrote:

> Hi Rob
>
> Robd <robd74@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> 384f0532@newsserver1.picknowl.com.au">news:384f0532@newsserver1.picknowl.com.au...
> > Even if the driver was entering a section with the entry signal at stop,
> > according to the rule book in my state the driver after taking his
> order(if
> > Absolute) or stopping and sounding warning device (if Permissive) he is
> > supposed to proceed at caution, regardless of wether there is a broken
> rail,
> > fault, vandalism or a Train parked ahead as if everthing is working
> > correctly and you come up to a permissive signal, that means that a train
> is
> > in the next section. So how could the signal man be in question?
>
> What I am saying is that it is normal when authorised to pass a stick at
> stop for the signaler to tell you if there is another train ahead.... it is
> just common sense that he would tell the driver that there is a train
> ahead.... What I am doing is wondering aloud, if the signaler told the
> driver of W534 that there was a train in the section ahead... and if he'd
> did, why would you authorise a train to pass a stick at stop with a train
> ahead if the train required no assistance...

Hang on.. if  WL2 was authorised to pass the same signal due to failure prior
and then was held up at the next signal in advance, Penrith would not know (due
to damaged phone, and failure of train radio) of WL2's position until 1) he was
sighted and struck by W534 or 2) he appeared on the Penrith Signalling Diagram.

If it was the latter, then W534 would have been detained at the signal until
such time as WL2 arrived at Emu Plains which would have resulted in a delay of
around 10 mins (admittedly less than the delay caused by the accident)

The rules for passing signals at Stop have always been there, and I know it
sounds like a broken record, but passing requires a speed of which you can stop
short of an obstruction. IMO, assuming functional operation of the trains
braking equipment, any speed that causes a collision, is a direct breach in
relation to the safety requirements of that regulation.

>  I am not saying that is what
> happened, but it makes me wonder.... and that is why I think when the
> transcripts of those communications become known, we will be in a far better
> position to form an opinion as to what happened...
>

nobody answered the question of how many signallers were on duty that morning
either....
if it was more than 2 then a whole new communications scenario opens up..


>
> --
> Cheers
> Jack
>
> Queensland beautiful one day perfect
> the next.... And wet the other 363 days
> of the year

--
Thanks,

Tony Gatt.

________________________________________________________

  Never be afraid to try something new.
  Remember, amateurs built the ark.
  Professionals built the Titanic.
________________________________________________________

Personal Website: http://homepages.tig.com.au/~baulko/
Railway Website:   http://www.railpage.org.au/railpix/
________________________________________________________