pdwyer (was: British accident track layout)

[James Brook <ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au>]

    What exactly is your problem pdwyer???? I have found these threads
interesting. If you don't like them then don't read them. In other words pdwyer,
shut up unless you have something useful to contribute. You're right, people
have died and it is a tragedy, but you seem to be using this as an excuse to
attack anyone who has posted something in this thread.

pdwyer wrote:

> 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!



--
- James Brook -

----------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail:
mailto:ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au
Victorian Railfan Web Site:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ajmbrook/
----------------------------------------------------------------