Re: Head on in the Western district

[mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)]

In article <81uuud$2q81$1@otis.netspace.net.au> "Exnarc" 
<gwrly@netspace.net.au> writes:

>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.

One really now wonders whether the pass the auto rule at stop after some 
arbitrary waiting time needs to be scrapped, indeed whether it was ever good 
practice.
If it is known why an auto is at stop when it should more likely be displaying 
a proceed aspect,then there may be a case for passing it at stop, but to make 
it a general rule is really asking for trouble.
I witnessed a situation in NSW on the main south where an auto was at stop
because as it turned out later,a track joint had buckled and broken the 
metallic track circuiting bonds.
A following freight obeyed the rule, waited at the auto for the prescribed 
time ,then proceeded and part of the train fell off the track.
With radio comms now available just about everywhere ,is there any need to pass
signals at stop , autos or otherwise.


>>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.


The problem with the use of repeating signals as described above is that it 
makes any chance of going down the road of trying harmonise the various states 
differant signalling systems just about impossible, especially where within 
one state signals displaying particular aspects mean differant things based on 
their geographic location.
Ideally , and this really is a goal that we should head for , passing a home 
displaying G/R or whatever equivalent we take as clear normal speed should 
also mean that the integrity of the road is as far as can be determined clear 
to the next signal, which would include the state of points / grade crossings 
/ anything else that can impact of the safe passage of the trains.
Lets face it , life for drivers is going to get harder and harder, with more 
DOO and longer shifts,so lets at least reduce the work burden where basic 
technology allows .


MD