Re: Independent Review of Rail Safety Arrangements in Australia

[mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)]

In article <N2j74.88$9N.2107@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net> "Notagunzel" <notagunzel@bigfoot.com> writes:
>From: "Notagunzel" <notagunzel@bigfoot.com>
>Subject: Independent Review of Rail Safety Arrangements in Australia
>Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 16:23:45 +1100

>http://www.dotrs.gov.au/atc/rail/finalrpt.pdf

>Dated September 1999, 186 pages.

>I haven't read it fully yet, but they make the statement:

>"The belief is widespread that the 22 different safeworking systems that are
>reported to exist on the
>interstate track are the result of fragmented safety regulation. The matter
>of interfaces between the
>track owner and the operator is quite different to the question of the
>safety regime. The requirement
>that an operator maintain a number of different radio systems on
>locomotives, or that drivers are
>trained in a variety of safeworking procedures is principally a matter of
>efficiency, not safety. The
>safety requirements are principally that drivers are trained in the correct
>procedures, that the
>integrity of communication with train control is maintained, and that the
>interfaces are managed so
>as to avoid ambiguity and minimise human error..."

>Hmmm..... pretty *bold* statement that. |-)

>--
>Mr Notagunzel.
>Rail Transportation Connoisseur
>notagunzel@bigfoot.com
>(Regrets to announce there will be no further moves at
>http://www.geocities.com/nota_gunzel
>until further notice is issued from this office)


Ive read it all, and Im not very impressed.
Essentially its simply a statement of what happens now.
As you have pointed out above Safeworking Systems have nothing to do with 
safety,(God knows what they are for then.).
The real thorny issues , like the multiplicity of safeworking systems and 
radio comm systems and the even more obvious problem of signals displaying
the same aspects meaning differant things based on where they are , are 
completely ignored.

It would seem to me that based on these guidelines (thats all they are),any 
infrastructure owner can dream up any safeworking system they like,complete 
with whatever rules they like,and thats OK.
There appears to be no minimum standards to which safeworking systems are 
required to comply with.

Other real safety issues, like DOO or minimum and maximum shifts for drivers
arnt addressed at all.
I guess such things are classified as operational matters.

MD