Re: Independent Review of Rail Safety Arrangements in Australia

["Exnarc" <gwrly@netspace.net.au>]

Maurie Daly <mauried@commslab.gov.au> wrote in message
mauried.388.385DF410@commslab.gov.au">news:mauried.388.385DF410@commslab.gov.au...
> 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

DOO is a safeworking issue as rules must provide for Driver Only Operation
as the minimum basic criteria, however minimum and maximum shifts for
drivers is more an Occ Health and Safety issue.

What we need in this country (IMO) is a US type FRA to regulate the carriers
to prevent things like 32 hour shifts, one of our US owned roads was
documented on one occasion of being guilty of this in Australia, (there is
no dead hog 12 hour law here).

I've worked long shifts many times in the past, being rostered 11 hour
shifts is one thing, but do half a dozen back to back and you start to know
what a Zombie feels like.

Fatigue is the the most dangerous problem on Australia's railways at the
moment, this coupled by corporate policies that see profit before safety and
you have a lethal combination.

Bob.