Re: level crossing near misses, was Re: problems at ringwood

["Richo" <richardc@tpg.com.au>]

Lineman <grime@dcsi.net.au> wrote in message 3810f811@nap-ns1">news:3810f811@nap-ns1...
> IM(H)O boom gates are designed to protect trains from road vehicles,which
in
> this day is flawed logic
> A program started in the 1950s in Vic. should be fast tracked(no pun
> intended) and that program is the grade separation of road and rail in as
> many locations as possible and hang the cost.
> Failing this xings with booms that come down stopping road traffic under
> failure conditions should be redesigned to stop rail traffic from entering
> the crossing,rather than road traffic sitting and sitting and sitting.
What - why should the railways be punished for having roads cross them and
for the lack of consideration of some drivers and peds.

I remember they once wanted to make it that trains (between Drysdale and
Queenscliffe?) had to stop at every level crossing and wait for any passing
cars (a couple of hundred tonnes for 1-2 tonnes) how selfish and ridiculous
the car lobby can be. Absolutely continue with grade separations - I know
the ones between Liverpool and Campbelltown, and between Thirroul and
Wollongong - cost a lot of money coz its flat, but pay long run benefits in
travel time, reliability and saftey.

In the days of full width (admittedly manned) crossings you couldnt drive
through without doing some criminal damage -half width barriers are OK but
still open to being bypassed, unbarriered crossings are a real liability.
Pay for barriers out of the roads budget, why should rail be penalised for
road crossing it. The only exception being new rail lines across existing
roads.


> The way things are today is a poor substitute for an efficient traffic
> control system.
> Lineman
>
>




  -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
   http://www.newsfeeds.com       The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including  Dedicated  Binaries Servers ==-----