Re: Concord West Derailment

[David Johnson <trainman@ozemail.com.au>]

Tony Gatt wrote:

> This I cannot believe...

Fine, don't then.

> At which point did you inspect the rail?

Where it was sitting on the ground.

> Was it before or after the derailment?

Time or distance?  Time : After.  Distance : At.

> Which carriage caused a fracture of the rail?

Probably the first, as it was the first car that dug in to the embankment causing it to
be twisted 180 degrees to the direction it was facing by the movement of the second
car.

> Was it a fracture or was it a break?

Yes.

> If it was a fracture, it must be still there... so..
> Is its position relative to the derailing point of the train?

Yes.  Below is a diagram of the up tracks, with the X showing the location of the
fractured rail. (And derailment site)

Platform    /X----------
-----------/------------

> What qualifications do you have to assume that a train travelling at 118km/h would
> make it through a set of points rated for 25km/h anyway?

There was no visible evidence of derailment in the vicinity of the points.  There were
no flange marks on any sleepers.  There was no damage to the points.  It would have
been very rough, but the train could have conceivably stayed on the track had the track
remained intact.  The last car and a half of the train which did not reach point X were
not derailed.  All other cars derailed.  As for qualifications for assumption, I think
of the classic line in Under Siege 2 "Assumption is the mother of all f***ups".

> For those of you out there that remember Laverton in the 70's, a train travelling
> some 30km's per hour less trying to negotiate a set of 25km/h points in the reverse
> position, did not only derail the train, but forcibly removed the points, a signal
> gantry and the life of a passenger.

Is this relevant?  What was the track condition?  What was the condition of the
points?  The points at Concord West were in very good condition, but the track in the
up refuge was not.

> I do believe that ill informed assumptions degrade the level of information that
> can be provided in this newsgroup.

I am merely providing another theory as to what might have happened.  What I posted are
my beliefs, and are possibilities.  I don't see what you hope to gain by being nasty
about it.  Were you at the accident site to see it for yourself?

> One day the results may be made public, only then will we really know the outcome..

True.  But some people will not believe the outcome no matter what it is.  I know many
people who do not believe that the 1990 3801 accident was caused by sand.  These are
ill-informed people claiming they know something that the SRA engineers do not. (People
who were not at the accident site, mind you.)

--
David Johnson
CityRail Guard
trainman@ozemail.com.au
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~trainman/