Re: Head on in the Western district

["John Kerley" <deaftech@ozemail.com.au>]

Exnarc <gwrly@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
81trbs$2ltd$1@otis.netspace.net.au">news:81trbs$2ltd$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
>
> John Kerley <deaftech@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> A8t04.13061$MZ.90168@ozemail.com.au">news:A8t04.13061$MZ.90168@ozemail.com.au...
> >snip<
> > >  >Point indicators are of little use on a
> > > > 115kph main line, especially as Ararat is merely an "intermediate
> > siding"
> > > > and not a crossing station as Zanthus is.
>
> >sniped again<
>
> > I believe that the only safe form of protection for sidings on a railway
> > where speeds of up to 115 kph and also passenger trains are permitted,
is
> > either a system where the lock to the siding is interlocked with the
> Section
> > Authority, such as was the case with ES and when travelling on staff
under
> S
>
> > Therefore in my view only absolute signals preceeded by repeaters
provide
> > the necessary protection on a "high speed" railway.   Even the CRT
siding
> > type repeaters are inadequate.  Absolute protection is needed as well.
>
> I can't agree, whilst I agree the prefered option is CTC etc. Repeating
> Signals will protect and give adequate warning of the position of the
> points, to which the driver will respond, lets face it, the whole safety
on
> the railway eventually relies on the integraty of the Driver, even fully
> interlocked track circuited signals require the driver to respond. Had
> Ararat had a Repeating signal between the loop and the points the driver
> would have stopped in time (allowing for a run down before the points
could
> be opened). Likewise again, had the signal at the Loop been interlocked
> (with suitable run down) with the Annett Key or points it would not have
> happened either.
>
>
> > Certainly at Ararat given its additional status as a "junction siding" ,
> > absolute signals should be provided asp.
>
>  Why??? Its not a true junction. The Maryborough Branch terminates in the
> yard, not on the mainline, the traffic levels (1 train a day/week) would
> make you suggestion an overkill. Sure it needs better protection, I doubt
if
> anyone would argue with that, but full signalling without CTC is an
overkill
> in my opinion.
>
> > It is also ironic, which I think you pointed out in another post, that
if
> > the CTC had  not been pulled out between Ararat and Pyrenees Loop, this
> > incident would not have happened.  A further irony is that the security
at
> > Ararat was recently further down graded by providing not one but two
> >Annett keys so that both ends of the siding could be left open at once!!!
>
> Yes thats right, however, any of the above remedies would fix that, CTC to
> Newport is probably not all that far off anyway, as I believe ARTC don't
> really want the ASW to stay, so I guess Ararat will eventually be
> electrically locked again (probably by Switch Lock not Absolute Signals).
>
> Bob.
>
I think we are moving towards agreement!

 I also agree that CTC all the way to Newport is the only safe answer.
However would not switch locking Ararat then mean that the section would
then be protected by the absolute signals at Pyrenees Loop and Maroona, i.e.
the home departure signals controlling entry to that section?  Actually, on
rereading your above paragraph that is probably what you are implying!

The reason why I think Ararat should be protected by a higher level of
security than perhaps a "normal" siding, rather than a lesser level which is
currently the case, is that the probability of a train being "locked away"
there is much greater.  A loco to loco prang is potentially a much more
serious incident than a loco into some wagons.  However that said, all forms
of sidings need a greater degree of protection than now provided.

My paranoia over reducing as far as possible the consequences of human
failure probably results from
(a)    Having lived in England for 10 years where the strict signalling and
safeworking rules applied over there, at least when I was there 20 years
ago, would result in half the present Australian railways system being
closed down if they were applied over here
(b)    Having been on the receiving end of a couple of safeworking
"incidents" over here, which would not have occurred if British standards
had been applied.  In one of these cases after a second repeat incident
which resulted in people being hospitalised, the rule book in true "Red For
Danger" style was eventually changed to remove the human element.

Hence my campaign to remove the human element where ever possible.

Thus getting back to the need for absolute signals to protect intermediate
sidings and not just repeaters at least until CTC is installed!

Railwaypeople (see, I'm not sexist!) are conditioned that "red light" means
stop. It's an ingrained reflex action.
A "yellow light" means "look out for the red ahead".   If there is no red
ahead, such as at CRT siding, there is the "conditioned response"
possibility that the driver will just keep going looking for the signal that
it is supposed to be repeating until he also ends up with a head-on with a
train locked away at CRT.

i.e  Having a different meaning for the "repeater" at CRT to any other
"yellow light" in Victoria, as far as I am aware, is yet another disaster
waiting to happen on the Western SG.

On that note, here endth the espistle!

Cheers,

John K


>
>