Re: Head on in the Western district

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

Hi Maurie,

As an operator I'm going to have to agree to disagree on some of the points
you have raised in reply, however I'll try to answer a few I think require
it.


> ><snip.>

>
> But all railway rules, when complied with properly are as safe as houses.

Thats right and thats why Drivers are paid, (to comply with the rules), if
they don't they are dealt with as can be seen by the Melbourne Driver who
was sacked by NX after a Safeworking breach on the NE last month.

> The reason accidents occur is because of the human element,not in spite of
it.

And what ever you do you will never remove it!!!

> Im sure the Ararat accident would not have happened at all if all rules
had
> been complied with.

That had nothing to do with passing a RED Auto Maurie, it was the lack of
protection that caused that accident.

> There is also a quite differant situation in the suburban network in
relation  to >autos than there is in the country.

But you didn't say that, you made a general statement which I answered,
there was no suggestion that your comments where related to the country
only!!!

> Signals are physically located quite close together,so that its practical
to
> allow the scenerio of a train proceeding past a red auto , until the next
> signal is reached.

Yes you are right, this does make a difference to a degree.

> In addition , we also have in the suburban network a very
> crude but effective form of ATP in the form of train stops, which mitigate
> even further the consequences of human error.

Its funny you having said that, the result Reg 74 (now Rule 1,Section 3) was
changed was the result of 2 rear end collisions in the suburban area not the
country, trains that had been stopped by the "Magical" Train Stop.

> In the country , we have long distances between autos,which make the
concept of preceeding at extreme caution past autos quite impractical,with
the
> consequence that what usually happens is that a train stops at the
auto,waits
> the prescribed time period, then crawls past the auto then speeds up until
we
> get to the next one,which could easily be 20 kms away.

Yes thats correct, up until the 1994 Rule book (Vic) in CTC Territory the
rules required the Driver to call Control and inform him that the signal was
at stop, the Controller then advised the Driver if a Train was in the Track
Section ahead, if this was the case the Driver was not permitted to pass the
signal until advised the track section was clear, if he was advised that it
was clear, he carried out the instructions as perscribed in Regulation 74,
ie: Waited 30 seconds, then proceeds at "Extreme" Caution into the section
ahead, being prepared to stop short of any obstruction, which could be
anything from a broken rail or bonding to a track wash away, or at some
locations an open switchlock door or points, (read Ararat if it had been
track circuited).

> As you pointed out in a previous post, the Barnawatha prang occurred
precisly because of this rule being violated.

Yes and had they had radio communication that wouldn't (or might not) have
happened, the provision of radios on all trains and  the stop speak to
control rule in CTC territory was a direct result of the Barnawatha prang.
It was just after the election of the Cain Labor Government, and the Libs
had the audacity in the House to criticise the Minister of Transport (Steve
Crabb) for not supplying On Train Communication, the Libs had been playing
around with it for about 2 years when in power and done nothing constructive
(this should start a political debate)<g>.

> Radio coverage in the country, at least on the main SG main lines is
good,(in
> Victora at least, its crummy in NSW.) which means that its practical in
most
> cases to able to contact control before passing autos at red.

This already applies, except where radio communication is not available (as
I have explained) if the provision to pass an Auto was not allowed in the
event of failure, the railway would grind to a halt and the truckies would
be laughing all the way to the bank. What does surprise me  is that the
"Stop and Speak In" Rule was removed from the book when the 1994 issue was
released.

> The whole thing is a question of trading safety for expediancy, ie if we
dont
> have the money to implement a safe system, lets implement an unsafe one
and > just change the rules to make it appear safe.

Whilst I'll agree that safety seems to be a second thought amongst some rail
managers, on the whole the industry is very safe, having said that, I do
agree that cost cutting has gone to far, we seem to be able to waste
millions on a white elephant like ASW (which I'm still to be convinced is
safe) and yet a miserly 9 or 10 million to CTC the Western Mainline is out
of the question at this stage. Its more a case of pet projects for rail
managers than what the system needs, and if you think cost cutting was bad
under government ownership, wait to see what these foreigners will do.

> The introduction of TO and ASW into Victoria is a good example of this.

Yes as I've said above. But at least in Vic, TOs are limited to a small
number of trains in a 24 hour period. If the timetable exceeded that (I
think it was 8) TOs weren't allowed to be introduced, this was (I believe)
based on workloads for Train Controllers,and in Victoria also they must be
varified if not taken down by the Driver, and after finished must be
Fullfiled by the Driver notifying control that he knows his train has
arrived complete not just that the loco and a few cars have arrived
complete, something AN could learn to do!!!!

> At some point you have to stop and simply say this is the minimum
acceptable level of safety that we will tolerate, and if no money is
available then a  line is simply not opened.

I agree, but with this (FED) Gov'ts pro road mentality, all we will get is
more trucks making the roads even more dangerous.

> Im sure that if Victrak had simply refused to open the SG from Newport to
> Ararat when it was built unless funding for CTC was made available , then
it
> would have been quickly forthcoming.

The PTC owned the track at that stage and any refusal to open the track
would have resulted in heads rolling, besides the PTC was pushing its sacred
cow ASW as the means to all then.

> Horizontal integration , ie where one mob own the track and another mob
run > the trains doesnt help either, as the track owner , who is ultimately
> responsible for safeworking will try to save money as much as possible by
> whittling down safety standards , knowing full well that it is the Rail
> operators who have to wear the consequences of any accidents.

Legally the track owner can't negate that responsibility, it is ultimutely
responcible for what happens on its tracks, not the operator who is required
to have been accredited by the owner before they can legally operate on the
line.

Thats one of the reasons NRC (thankfully for the crews) are having so much
trouble introducing DOO, both RAC and ARTC have continually put up obsticles
to DOO because of the legal ramifications on them, not NRC if something
drastic goes wrong. Workcover (OH&S) rules won't negate the track owner if
they allow an unsafe practice to occur.

> Its pretty certain that we will never have any sort of consistant
safeworking
> or signalling on the National Network, too many vested interests in
keeping
> the status quo, but at least its time to stop introducing even more State
> specific rules which rely on drivers having more and more specific
knowledge
> of specific bits of the National Network.

I've never said we should introduce anything new on a state basis, my
comments about Repeating Signals is already existing practice and have been
for many decades. The Repeater with Reduce To Medium capabilty for example
goes back (in the old Melbourne Yard) to before WW2, the Repeating of
Distant Signals even further (when the SOP was running on the NE BG) in the
Broadford case.

> Training drivers and complying with all the existing specific State based
> rules is currently one of the more costly and time consuming aspects for
any
> operator who wishes to traverse State boundaries, being far worse for
smaller operators.

Very true you won't get an arguement on that one.

> We have to get out of the "This is the way things are done in (put your
state
> here) mentality."

Bit late for that Maurie, that should have been done in 1854.

Regards,
Bob.