Re: Glenbrook accident [NSW]

["Derick Wuen" <cullend@webone.com.au>]

At least the train stop enforces a stop and recovery of brake pressure, a
sort-of time interval enforcement. And it seems to have worked well inside
"metropolitan" area. And should be extended to all intensively worked
routes.

As for your re-emphasis on safety first, I could not agree more. How many
more lives before SPADs are outlawed?


Ronald BESDANSKY wrote in message ...

>Any idea why it matters if there's a train stop or not? I can't see what
>difference that makes.
>
>Also, how can a signaller give permission to the driver  to pass a signal
at
>'stop' when the signaller does not know the current location of the
previous
>train? Aren't we reverting to 'time interval' working, which was abolished
>around 1850?
>
>I can see an outcome of this incident being a ban on passing signals at
stop
>unless the line can be asceratined to be clear to the next signal by sight.
>Even if the previous train has been reported passing the next signal, there
>is no gurantee it hasn't left a vehicle in the section. (There is still the
>possibility of a broken rail). Otherwise, absolute telephone block has to
be
>instituted.
>
>Was Lapstone attended at the time of the accident? How long would it have
>taken to get someone qualified in safeworking to Lapstone to institute
>telephone block?
>
>Was it worth the risk involved to send the Intercity into the section, even
>if it meant waiting for the IP to be reported passing Emu Plains complete?
>
>Perhaps any delay would have been more acceptable if the passengers on the
>Intercity were kept fully informed of what was going on? Something along
the
>lines of "due to signal failure, it will be necessary for this train to
wait
>at Glenbrook until the train in front has arrived at Emu Plains. Your
safety
>is our absolute priority". Perhaps this is politically-unacceptable
>daydreaming.
>
>Rgds
>
>Ron BESDANSKY
>
>