Re: Head on in the Western district

["Exnarc" <gwrly@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<

> 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!

Well basically yes.

> 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.

Ararat is essentually just an Intermediate Siding in Section Authority
Territory, for example, no different to Inverleigh where locos have been
locked away on occassions. But I guess its more likely that at Ararat the
other loco could have a crew on it.

>snip<

> Red for Danger" style was eventually changed to remove the human element.

There will always be a human element no matter what you do, it was the human
element that caused the rear end collision at Lara in 1980 (of which I was a
crew member), when the 2030 Up Geelong ran into the rear of an Up Ballarat
goods, this was in full ATC territory with full signalling, the human
element was that there was a "Wrong Side Failure" as the result of a very
fatigued Signal Fitter incorrectly rewiring a relay. Or at Barnawatha when
the crew of an Up SG ran into the rear of the SOP after stopping at a "RED"
Automatic Signal, you will never take away the human element in one form or
another.

>snip<

> 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!)

I am<g>

>are conditioned that "red light" means
> stop. It's an ingrained reflex action.

To a point.

> A "yellow light" means "look out for the red ahead".

No it does'nt really, on a Repeating Signal its a warning of a track
condition ahead, for example: The use of Repeating Signals on VR has
depended on the location, whilst the rule indicates that a Repeating Signal
tells a Driver he is going from a Two Position area to a Three Position area
and repeats the aspect of the next signal, it can be and has been used for
many purposes.

For example, at Ballan and at Broadford the Repeating Signal told the Driver
the aspect of the Distant Signal in advance. Clearly in a 2 position area
only, at Emu (and a number of later locations) the Repeater indicated the
position of the Trailable Points at the Un-attended Crossing Loop. At other
locations such as the old Melbourne Yard, (pre 1970) and at Horsham,
Castlemaine and currently at Ballarat, the Repeating Signals gave (or gives)
in addition to the standard Y/Y, G/Y, a Reduce to Medium Speed indication
(Y/G) to indicate the Aspect of the next stick.

They are very versitile signals.

>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 think you need to give Enginemen a little more credability for Rule &
Track knowledge, a Y/Y on a Repeating signal would indicate to the Driver
the required message, his track knowledge would tell him the rest.


> 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.

As I've pointed out above it doesn't give a different meaning, there are
plenty of examples of this type of thing, the only difference in this case
is that it protects a Switch locked Siding.

Now if you were to open up the subject of Switch Locked Sidings in a non
Track Circuited area, that would bring a different responce. From what I can
decipher this was a ARTC responce to a situation created by V/Line's less
than "safe" safeworking system, I've always believed that ASW did not mean
"Alternative Safeworking" I believe they left out the "TO" after Alternative
and before Safeworking.


Regards,

Bob.