Re: British accident track layout

["James" <outrun@mpx.com.au>]

Give over, this group is for rail discussion and all points of view wether
everyone agrees on a point or not. Each and every person is entitled to
their own point of view and/or interprtation of events.

We know people have died in the accident, and it is better to discuss what
happened and learn from it than to not say a thing and forget about it till
something like it happens again....

James

--

pdwyer <pdwyerNOpdSPAM@ecn.net.au.invalid> wrote in message
09920fb9.4e7b4f6a@usw-ex0102-009.remarq.com">news:09920fb9.4e7b4f6a@usw-ex0102-009.remarq.com...
> In article <37FCC845.AFBE94D@efs.mq.edu.au>, Eddie Oliver
> <eoliver@efs.mq.edu.au> wrote:
> > Despite the aggressive posting from someone who says that we either
> > don't know what we're talking about or would know to keep quiet
> > till the inquiry is finished, let's just get as close as we can to
> > the facts (as distinct from the interpretations).
>
> What facts?
>
> > The layout, as supplied to an international signalling mailing
> > list by a > very reliable source, is complicated, but the RELEVANT
> > parts of it are thus:
>
> (snip irrelevant ASCII diagram)
>
>  Let's see some of Oliver's commentary
>
> > Paddington is at the left-hand end. There are also many other
> > tracks and many other crossovers irrelevant to the accident.
>
>  Irrelevant? How so? What locking conditions exist at the points,
> crossovers etc you have included or neglected to number or mention?
>
> > The train T was the one which allegedly passed the signal at stop.
>
>   Allegedly? You mean you DON'T KNOW????
>
>   Are you willing to go before a court of inquiry and state either that
> you know that a train has passed a signal at stop or are you
> speculating upon an incident that has caused a substantial loss of life?
>
> > ultimately end up at the points D, there being no catchpoints.
> > That is  where it did end up - colliding with the train H.
> > The distance between the signal and the points D was greater than
> > the overlap distance which is required to exist beyond a signal at
> > stop (to protect against braking errors and the like). Thus from a
> > signal design point of view, the design was consistent with British
> > overlap principles to protect against driving errors of the braking
> > variety; there was just no protection against the train passing the
> > signal at stop and keeping on going. This of course makes no
> > assumptions about whether or not the signal was in fact passed at
> > stop.
>
>   Making no assumptions? You have already alleged that the Thames train
>   has passed a signal at stop.
>
> > We are simply at this stage discussing how IF the signal was passed
> > at stop, it would result in a collision at the points D.
>
> > If anyone wants to see a pretty complete ASCII representation of
> > the complete track layout, look for a posting by Clive Feather on the
> > newsgroup uk.railway at about 0100 Australian eastern time Friday
> > morning.
>
>   The reason I wish people would refrain from making commenting or
> making 'snap' judgements on what they believe to be facts.
>
>  How many people would you like to have died Eddie?
>   10??
>   20??
>   30??
>   40??
>
>   Are you keeping a running total?
>
>   To a lot of people concerned with the safety of rail passengers,
>  an accident likethe one at Paddington is not a joke, nor a topic of
>  idle conversation.
>
>  People have DIED Eddie.
>
>
>
>
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network
*
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>