Concord West Derailment
McFe...@my-dejanews.com
It is now more than seven months since the Concord West derailment, and I
haven't heard anything mentioned anywhere (even on this ng) about the results
of the inquiry. Have I been living under a rock? Have the results been made
public?
I am particularly interested in knowing what the official findings were
regarding the cause of the derailment, and the apportionment of responsibility
for same. I am also interested in any recommendations that came out of the
inquiry, especially with regards to signalling and ATP.
Can anyone help?
Rob
Sydney (Australia)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Chris Downs
My thoughts are that the driver was caught out by the ambiguity of Green
over Yellow aspects in this situation. I understand that the two signals
before Concord West station were both showing Green over Yellow. Easily
mistaken for closing in on a preceeding train - especially when approaching
Strathfield area's junctions. The driver may have felt comfortable not
braking at that stage in the knowledge that he could easily slow the train,
after sighting a Green over Red aspect, and before encountering Red over Red
over Green and risking being tripped.
If this were the case the Yellow over Yellow aspect for the turnout would
have caught the driver by complete surprise. To make matters worse, this
signal would have been obscured to some extent by the buildings on Concord
West's up platform due to the large radius left hand curve. Suddenly the
driver would have been confronted with a 25km/h turnout rather than a Green
over Red signal he could arguably have passed at line speed in perfect
safety (albeit then needing to use the top end of the Tangara's braking
performance).
[The matter of what speed the driver should pass a Green over Red aspect is
not directly relevant to my theory.]
If the Green over Yellow aspects had pulsated to indicate a turnout rather
than a signal at danger some distance in advance on the main line the
situation would unlikely have occurred (again in my opinion and asuming my
asumptions are valid).
As for ATP, a worthwhile idea, but in an area cover by trips and trip cocks
on most trains, would it stand up to a cost benefit analysis?
Chris
McFe...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<78egen$95o$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Homer
Quick question - what is ATP?
> As for ATP, a worthwhile idea, but in an area cover by trips and trip cocks
> on most trains, would it stand up to a cost benefit analysis?
>
McFe...@my-dejanews.com
"Chris Downs" <cvd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> I've heard not a peep about the causes or cures for this accident.
>
> My thoughts are that the driver was caught out by the ambiguity of Green
I was thinking much along the same lines, but if you assume that the
signalling is ambiguous, it follows that measures should be implemented (at
cost) to eliminate the ambiguity. It is for this reason that it concerns me
that the results of the inquiry seem to have lacked any sort of publicity.
> If the Green over Yellow aspects had pulsated to indicate a turnout rather
> than a signal at danger some distance in advance on the main line the
> situation would unlikely have occurred (again in my opinion and asuming my
> asumptions are valid).
Good suggestion, but if the flasher unit failed, the signals would default to
a steady Green over Yellow which may erroneously suggest that line speed is
safe. A better modification might be the inclusion of an angled row of lunar
lights like is used at Cabramatta and Merrylands one signal before the
junction signal.
> As for ATP, a worthwhile idea, but in an area cover by trips and trip cocks
> on most trains, would it stand up to a cost benefit analysis?
That all depends on how much (in dollar terms) a human life is judged to be
worth! Apparently the Government/SRA don't believe ATP is affordable, as they
have experimented with it before, but have opted not to proceed with
widespread installation. The section of track between Campbelltown and
Liverpool is still equipped with the balises that were used for an ATP trial
ten years ago. A Tangara and a loco were furnished with the necessary onboard
equipment, but the project didn't make it beyond trial stage, although I
believe the Tangaras are designed to be easily upgraded to ATP operation
should it be installed somethime in the future.
>
> Chris
Bill Bolton
> Good suggestion, but if the flasher unit failed, the signals would default to
> a steady Green over Yellow which may erroneously suggest that line speed is
> safe.
It is normal signalling practice to make any detectable signalling
equipment failure cause an aspect to display which would still result
in a safe outcome.
Since flasher failure is easy to detect, there is no reason to expect
it would result in a Green over Yellow aspect. More likely it would
go to Green over Red, or some other more restrictive aspect to ensure
a low speed approach to the Yellow over Yellow.
> A better modification might be the inclusion of an angled row of lunar
> lights like is used at Cabramatta and Merrylands one signal before the
> junction signal.
The same failure issue applies to the circuit which would drive a "row
of lights" display".
Cheers
Bill
Robert Harris
McFe...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <36aaf...@139.134.5.33>,
> "Chris Downs" <cvd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've heard not a peep about the causes or cures for this accident.
> >
> > My thoughts are that the driver was caught out by the ambiguity of Green
> > over Yellow aspects in this situation. <much snipped>
>
> I was thinking much along the same lines, but if you assume that the
> signalling is ambiguous, it follows that measures should be implemented (at
> cost) to eliminate the ambiguity. It is for this reason that it concerns me
> that the results of the inquiry seem to have lacked any sort of publicity.
>
> > If the Green over Yellow aspects had pulsated to indicate a turnout rather
> > than a signal at danger some distance in advance on the main line the
> > situation would unlikely have occurred (again in my opinion and asuming my
> > asumptions are valid).
>
> Good suggestion, but if the flasher unit failed, the signals would default to
> a steady Green over Yellow which may erroneously suggest that line speed is
> safe. A better modification might be the inclusion of an angled row of lunar
> lights like is used at Cabramatta and Merrylands one signal before the
> junction signal.
>
> > As for ATP, a worthwhile idea, but in an area cover by trips and trip cocks
> > on most trains, would it stand up to a cost benefit analysis?
>
> That all depends on how much (in dollar terms) a human life is judged to be
> worth! Apparently the Government/SRA don't believe ATP is affordable, as they
> have experimented with it before, but have opted not to proceed with
> widespread installation. The section of track between Campbelltown and
> Liverpool is still equipped with the balises that were used for an ATP trial
> ten years ago. A Tangara and a loco were furnished with the necessary onboard
> equipment, but the project didn't make it beyond trial stage, although I
> believe the Tangaras are designed to be easily upgraded to ATP operation
> should it be installed somethime in the future.
>
> >
> > Chris
> >
Talking to the inspectors, they are trying to make the signal before a turn out
green over red so that here is no way this can happen again.
rgds
David Johnson
> Quick question - what is ATP?
Automatic Train Protection
--
David Johnson
CityRail Guard
trai...@ozemail.com.au
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~trainman/
David Johnson
> To make matters worse, this
> signal would have been obscured to some extent by the buildings on Concord
> West's up platform due to the large radius left hand curve.
It was actually a very large tree completely obscuring the top light until about
50m from the signal. After the accident, the tree was lopped considerably
giving far better sighting distance of the signal (about 600m). A Tangara doing
115 km/h can easily stop in 600m.
Notagunzel
> McFe...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Good suggestion, but if the flasher unit failed, the signals would default to
> > a steady Green over Yellow which may erroneously suggest that line speed is
> > safe.
>
> It is normal signalling practice to make any detectable signalling
> equipment failure cause an aspect to display which would still result
> in a safe outcome.
>
> Since flasher failure is easy to detect, there is no reason to expect
> it would result in a Green over Yellow aspect. More likely it would
> go to Green over Red, or some other more restrictive aspect to ensure
> a low speed approach to the Yellow over Yellow.
>
> > A better modification might be the inclusion of an angled row of lunar
> > lights like is used at Cabramatta and Merrylands one signal before the
> > junction signal.
>
> The same failure issue applies to the circuit which would drive a "row
> of lights" display".
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
Good practice should be for the steady aspect to be more restrictive than the
flashing aspect, as it is in the UK (and NSW single light territory?).
Anyway, the meaning of the aspect MEDIUM according to the 67GA (up to date as
always, I am), is 'Proceed; next signal at caution, but signal within braking
distance at Stop, or next signal at Medium for turnout junction'. So how do
drivers know which applies? Telepathy? Perhaps they all should come to Victoria
and learn how to do it properly!
BC
Maurie Daly
>From: Notagunzel <notag...@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Concord West Derailment
>Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:22:52 +1100
>Bill Bolton wrote:
>BC
There seems to be in NSW a myriad of differant signalling indications to
indicate essentially the same thing , ie a train is diverging from the thru
running road via a set of reverse facing points .
Im not familiar with the indications within the Sydney suburban area to
indicate this , but on the main south there seems to be a number of differant
indications.
Could someone comment on what the following indications mean.
1/ Red over a row of flashing yellow lights.
2/ Red over a row of fixed yellow lights.
3/ A single flashing yellow light over red.
4/ A single non flashing yellow light over red.
5/ A red over yellow , or red over green with or without route indicator.
Its fairly obvious that they all mean essentially the same thing , ie slow
down and prepare to diverge ftom the main road,but one has to wonder why we
need so many,or has it something to do with making the signalling system as
complicated as possible.
thanks
MD
Robert Harris
David Johnson wrote:
> Homer wrote:
>
> > Quick question - what is ATP?
>
> Automatic Train Protection
>
> --
> David Johnson
> CityRail Guard
Which involves geting fifty Chubb guards to circle the train so that if
it hits anything the train won't get hurt. :-)
rgds
Krel
>>> > A better modification might be the inclusion of an angled row of lunar
>>> > lights like is used at Cabramatta and Merrylands one signal before the
>>> > junction signal.
>>>
>>flashing aspect, as it is in the UK (and NSW single light territory?).
>
goes out, it just gets brighter then dimmer. On a Shunt ahead signal
the yellow light flashes.
>>Anyway, the meaning of the aspect MEDIUM according to the 67GA (up to date as
>>always, I am), is 'Proceed; next signal at caution, but signal within braking
>>distance at Stop, or next signal at Medium for turnout junction'. So how do
>>drivers know which applies? Telepathy? Perhaps they all should come to Victoria
>>and learn how to do it properly!
>
No, no not Victoria!!! VR signalling is as silly and confusing as NSW.
EG in Vic you cannot have a single yellow light indication on a home
or automatic signal because a yellow light indicates that it is a
distant!! Wouldn't location and route knowledge tell you this?
EG in Vic it is possible on a CTC line to get the following sequence -
G/R, Y/R, G, R. Green-yellow-green-red??
EG in Vic automatic signals that can only display three indications
(clear, warning and stop) have a fixed lower red light. Why? and why
red? If the top light is obscured or out the lower red light tells you
nothing.
What we need is for all states to swallow their pride and work towards
an Australian standard. Instead we have each state argueing that the
other states should modify their system because 'ours' is better.
>There seems to be in NSW a myriad of differant signalling indications to
>indicate essentially the same thing , ie a train is diverging from the thru
>running road via a set of reverse facing points .
>Im not familiar with the indications within the Sydney suburban area to
>indicate this , but on the main south there seems to be a number of differant
>indications.
>
>Could someone comment on what the following indications mean.
>
>1/ Red over a row of flashing yellow lights.
(pulsating lights but I know what you mean) Proceed at Medium speed
through turnout, next signal is not at stop.
>2/ Red over a row of fixed yellow lights.
Proceed at medium speed through turnout.
>3/ A single flashing yellow light over red.
>4/ A single non flashing yellow light over red.
Proceed at caution, next signal may be at stop.
>5/ A red over yellow , or red over green with or without route indicator.
Large red over small yellow is call on - proceed expecting to find
line ahead occupied or a broken rail (points are locked for move).
Large red over small green is Low Speed - proceed at Low Speed to next
signal, line ahead is unoccupied.
>
>Its fairly obvious that they all mean essentially the same thing , ie slow
>down and prepare to diverge ftom the main road,but one has to wonder why we
>need so many,or has it something to do with making the signalling system as
>complicated as possible.
>
In Vic, basically there are two:-
Red over Yellow - medium speed warning &
Red over Red over small yellow - low speed warning (same as call on in
NSW). Low speed in NSW (small green) is track circuited; low speed in
Vic (small yellow) is not.
Both Vic indications give NO INFORMATION asbout the intended route for
the train - they only indicate speed limit. if your train is being
mis-routed you find out as you turn the wrong way.
Cheers
Krel
Just another eccentric crank.
L & D
Krel wrote:
> >>> > A better modification might be the inclusion of an angled row of lunar
> >>> > lights like is used at Cabramatta and Merrylands one signal before the
> >>> > junction signal.
> >>>
> >>Good practice should be for the steady aspect to be more restrictive than the
> >>flashing aspect, as it is in the UK (and NSW single light territory?).
> >
> Firstly, these signals do not "flash"; they "pulsate". The light never
> goes out, it just gets brighter then dimmer. On a Shunt ahead signal
> the yellow light flashes.
>
> >>Anyway, the meaning of the aspect MEDIUM according to the 67GA (up to date as
> >>always, I am), is 'Proceed; next signal at caution, but signal within braking
> >>distance at Stop, or next signal at Medium for turnout junction'. So how do
> >>drivers know which applies? Telepathy? Perhaps they all should come to Victoria
> >>and learn how to do it properly!
> >
> No, no not Victoria!!! VR signalling is as silly and confusing as NSW.
> EG in Vic you cannot have a single yellow light indication on a home
> or automatic signal because a yellow light indicates that it is a
> distant!! Wouldn't location and route knowledge tell you this?
> EG in Vic it is possible on a CTC line to get the following sequence -
> G/R, Y/R, G, R. Green-yellow-green-red??
> EG in Vic automatic signals that can only display three indications
> (clear, warning and stop) have a fixed lower red light. Why
The lower red light is a marker light
> ? and why
> red? If the top light is obscured or out the lower red light tells you
> nothing.
Yes it doe's the location of the signal and if there isn't any other indication then
it must be treated as a stop signal
Greg
Notagunzel wrote in message <36ABB95C...@hotmail.com>...
>Anyway, the meaning of the aspect MEDIUM according to the 67GA (up to date
as
>always, I am), is 'Proceed; next signal at caution, but signal within
braking
>distance at Stop, or next signal at Medium for turnout junction'. So how
do
>drivers know which applies? Telepathy? Perhaps they all should come to
Victoria
>and learn how to do it properly!
>
>BC
>
We drivers up here in nsw are to be familiar with the roads on which we are
to transverse.... its called local road knowledge.... we tend to know where
all the turnouts are... i dont think we need to head south to learn
anything....
cheers
Greg
Greg
Maurie Daly wrote in message ...
>In article <36ABB95C...@hotmail.com> Notagunzel
<notag...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>From: Notagunzel <notag...@hotmail.com>
>>Subject: Re: Concord West Derailment
>>Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:22:52 +1100
>
>indicate essentially the same thing , ie a train is diverging from the thru
>running road via a set of reverse facing points .
>Im not familiar with the indications within the Sydney suburban area to
>indicate this , but on the main south there seems to be a number of
differant
>indications.
>
>Could someone comment on what the following indications mean.
>
>1/ Red over a row of flashing yellow lights.
>4/ A single non flashing yellow light over red.
>
>
>MD
>1/ Red over a row of flashing yellow lights
indicates a turnout and the next signal in advance is not at stop
2/ Red over a row of fixed yellow lights
indicates a turnout and the signal in advance is at stop
>3/ A single flashing yellow light over red.
>4/ A single non flashing yellow light over red.
>5/ A red over yellow , or red over green with or without route indicator.
as for the last 3 i wouldnt know but i know but to my knowledge , which is
limited , that type of signaling isnt used in nsw , but more likely victoria
Cheers
Greg
David Johnson
> That all depends on how much (in dollar terms) a human life is judged to be
> worth!
It is called acceptable risk.
> Apparently the Government/SRA don't believe ATP is affordable, as they
> have experimented with it before, but have opted not to proceed with
> widespread installation. The section of track between Campbelltown and
> Liverpool is still equipped with the balises that were used for an ATP trial
> ten years ago. A Tangara and a loco
8650 was. I thought an 81 or two was equipped too, but I am not sure.
> were furnished with the necessary onboard
> equipment, but the project didn't make it beyond trial stage, although I
> believe the Tangaras are designed to be easily upgraded to ATP operation
> should it be installed somethime in the future.
Not any more. The tangara dashboard has been redesigned, leaving nowhere to put
the ATC equipment. I suppose it would be far easier to retrofit a tangara than
anything alse though.
--
David Johnson
CityRail Guard
David Johnson
> Talking to the inspectors, they are trying to make the signal before a turn out
> green over red so that here is no way this can happen again.
How is this for a suggestion? At the signal before a turnout, and also two signals
before in high speed sections, install an extra top yellow. The signal at the
turnout would be Yellow over Yellow, and the signal before it could be Yellow over
Green. Then there would be no mistaking an impending turnout.
John Dennis
>> (clear, warning and stop) have a fixed lower red light. Why
>
>The lower red light is a marker light
>
>> ? and why
>> red? If the top light is obscured or out the lower red light tells you
>> nothing.
>
>Yes it doe's the location of the signal and if there isn't any other indication then
>it must be treated as a stop signal
>
(absolute) depending upon whether the lights are staggered or not.
JD
==========================================================
John Dennis jde...@acslink.net.au
Melbourne den...@cai.com
Australia Home of the Dutton Bay Tramway
DBT URL: http://www.acslink.net.au/~jdennis/dbt.html
Maurie Daly
>From: "Greg" <gr...@tig.com.au>
>Subject: Re: Concord West Derailment
> Cheers
> Greg
Thanks for this.
The reason I originally asked was thet there doesnt seem to be a logical
pattern.
A couple of examples that I am familiar with.
Canberra bound explorer leaving Goulburn station gets a red over non flashing
row of yellow lights,irrespective of what the next indication is .
Canberra bound explorer after having left Goulburn gets a green followed
by single flashing yellow over red , followed by a
fixed yellow over red followed by a fixed red over non flashing yellow row
followed by a single green.
XPT leaving Yass junction for Sydney gets a red over flashing yellow followed
by a green over green.
The very bottom ones , ie red over yellow or green with route indicator are
used south of Junee to Albury on the CTC, and are the only ones that actually
make any sense.
I guess that it could be that we have a differant signalling regime in the
metro area than exists in the country.
cheers
MD
Eben Levy
The driver not been made aware of the diverge to the up relief.
The driver not been able to see the single correctly.
No Blame was placed on the driver.
The train was doing an estimated 118km/h when he entered the points.
This situation can happen at other locations.
No the findings weren't made public.
McFe...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> It is now more than seven months since the Concord West derailment, and I
> haven't heard anything mentioned anywhere (even on this ng) about the results
> of the inquiry. Have I been living under a rock? Have the results been made
> public?
>
> I am particularly interested in knowing what the official findings were
> regarding the cause of the derailment, and the apportionment of responsibility
> for same. I am also interested in any recommendations that came out of the
> inquiry, especially with regards to signalling and ATP.
>
> Can anyone help?
>
> Rob
>
> Sydney (Australia)
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
Bye for now,
Eben
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~tkid/
And one ring to rule ... err ... moderate them all!
C. Dewick
>It is now more than seven months since the Concord West derailment, and I
>haven't heard anything mentioned anywhere (even on this ng) about the results
>of the inquiry. Have I been living under a rock? Have the results been made
>public?
No, not yet, but word from people close to those conducting the
investigation suggests that responsibility is being split 50/50 between
perway and signals, and the driver will get very little, if anything at all.
Why? Because of issues relating to the bi-directional signalling works done
at Concord West when the new turnouts for the down refuge were installed
(when Homebush loop was converted to single track, etc.), and also because
the up refuge (where the train that derailed was routed) was apparently not
officially booked back into service before the train entered it.
Three other issues in the driver's favour are those of signal spacing at
Concord West, inadequate visibility of signals when running at above 100
km/h or so (track speed between Meadowbank and North Strathfield is 115
km/h), and signal aspect staging.
>I am particularly interested in knowing what the official findings were
>regarding the cause of the derailment, and the apportionment of responsibility
>for same. I am also interested in any recommendations that came out of the
>inquiry, especially with regards to signalling and ATP.
At the moment I don't think anything has come out of it.
If the issues I mentioned are actually true, and I believe most of them are,
then I'd suggest the official report won't be released because of the PR
damage it will cause to RSA (since they are, or were at the time,
responsible for perway and signalling over that section), and to CityRail,
etc.
I believe that the guard involved has already resigned because of ill health
and anxiety caused by the incident. The driver involved is still on the
job, but not working outside one of the maintenance centres.
Regards,
Craig.
--
Craig Ian Dewick | Stand clear - jaws closing
Send email to cra...@lios.apana.org.au | Visit my Australian rail transport
Professional Train Driver, Cityrail | and rail modelling web site:
and HO scale rail modeller | http://lios.apana.org.au/~craigd
C. Dewick
>My thoughts are that the driver was caught out by the ambiguity of Green
>over Yellow aspects in this situation. I understand that the two signals
>before Concord West station were both showing Green over Yellow. Easily
>mistaken for closing in on a preceeding train - especially when approaching
>Strathfield area's junctions. The driver may have felt comfortable not
>braking at that stage in the knowledge that he could easily slow the train,
>after sighting a Green over Red aspect, and before encountering Red over Red
>over Green and risking being tripped.
The same applies for a turnout indication. If there isn't a safe braking
distance between signals preceding one showing a turnout indication, then
more than one preceding signal is required to show a medium-caution (green
over yellow) indication so the driver has a safe braking distance to bring
his/her train under control should a following signal show either caution
(green over red) or a turnout indication (yellow over yellow or yellow over
red).
>If this were the case the Yellow over Yellow aspect for the turnout would
>have caught the driver by complete surprise. To make matters worse, this
>signal would have been obscured to some extent by the buildings on Concord
>West's up platform due to the large radius left hand curve. Suddenly the
>driver would have been confronted with a 25km/h turnout rather than a Green
>over Red signal he could arguably have passed at line speed in perfect
>safety (albeit then needing to use the top end of the Tangara's braking
>performance).
The trees on the up platform at Concord West were the contentious issue as
far as signal sighting goes. Also, the preceding signal is too close to give
a safe braking distance from 115 km/h if it's the only preceding signal
displaying medium-caution.
The radius of that curve is not very problematic (since the track is rated
at 115 kmh/h), but the spacing of signals preceding the home signal
protecting the turnout into the up refuge, and the fact that the signal
protecting the new crossover to the down refuge did not (allegedly) show
medium caution when the route to the up refuge is set, are major issues.
Here's a rough map of the relevant part of Concord West's arrangement:
------------ up refuge
S S PPPPPPP S /
up main ------------------------------------------------------ up main
\ S
down main ------------------------------------------------------ down main
\ S PPPPPPP
down refuge ------------------------------------------------------ down refuge
The platforms are represented by 'PPPPPPP', and signals by 'S'. Of concern
are the three signals on the Up main.
Before the Homebush Loop bi-directionalising (!), the only crossover on the
down refuge was from the refuge to the down main. immediately after Concord
West's down platform, protected by the existing home/starting signal. There
was never a crossover from the up main to down main, since the down refuge
wasn't bi-directional.
When this was all changed, the old crossover (which was immediately beyond
the down platform) was removed, and new ones installed a bit further away
(80 km/h rated), but they are still protected by the same pair of signals on
the down main and refuge.
On the up main, the second signal back from the up platform was converted
from and being an accept signal to a home signal so it can protect the new
crossover from the up to down mains, and it's at this time that the wiring
was apparently changed, and nobody (allegedly) realised at the time that
they second signal back on the up would no longer display medium caution
when the route into the up refuge was set.
Why? The up refuge was booked out of use when Homebush loop was made single
track because there is no longer any way to get from the up refuge into the
loop, so it's useless for freight trains. Previously, most trains off the
north went into the loop to change engines there, before crossing the main
lines onto the (then still double tracked) Homebush Loop.
The result? Nobody knew, or at least had admitted it (going from all the
info I've collected from various sources) until the train derailed at high
speed, that the second signal back would *not* show a medium caution, so the
driver would have presumed he was going on the main, not on the refuge,
after Concord West platform, and only realised something was ahead when he
saw the signal before the platform showing medium caution.
At that point, and until the train passes the overhead footbridge at the
north end of the platform, there is no visibility of the signal at the
Sydney end of the platform, and at the time this was further obstructed by
trees, so you had to go just under half-way along the platform (about 80
metres) before you could see the top light of the home signal protecting the
turnout into the up refuge.
>[The matter of what speed the driver should pass a Green over Red aspect is
>not directly relevant to my theory.]
No, but you've mentioned it... A green over red indication is a caution (or
'full caution') indication, and the driver of a train *must* have it under
control ready to stop short the next signal (which will either show
low-speed or stop, depending on the location).
>If the Green over Yellow aspects had pulsated to indicate a turnout rather
>than a signal at danger some distance in advance on the main line the
>situation would unlikely have occurred (again in my opinion and asuming my
>asumptions are valid).
Pulsating aspects aren't used in double-colour-light signalled areas. I see
your point, but I don't feel that adding yet another possible signal aspect
would be beneficial because there are more than enough possible indications
already, and to use pulsating yellows in double-light areas would confuse
more than aid drivers (at least that's how I personally feel).
>As for ATP, a worthwhile idea, but in an area cover by trips and trip cocks
>on most trains, would it stand up to a cost benefit analysis?
ATP (Automatic Train Protection) was tried and discarded, even though it's
the same system that QR are using extensively.
C. Dewick
>Talking to the inspectors, they are trying to make the signal before a turn out
>green over red so that here is no way this can happen again.
That is a shortcut method of solving the problem, and will annoy more people
that it's worth. Already there's an example of something similar...
The up home/starting signal on the up main that protects all the double
slips routing trains to/from all the platforms at Hornsby station displays
yellow over red regardless of whether the down starting signal on platform 1
(north shore up platform) is clear or not. I was mildly confused the first
time I noticed it, because the normal expectation is for yellow over yellow
if the signal after the home/starter on the up shore platform is clear.
C. Dewick
>Chris Downs wrote:
>> To make matters worse, this
>> signal would have been obscured to some extent by the buildings on Concord
>> West's up platform due to the large radius left hand curve.
>It was actually a very large tree completely obscuring the top light until about
>50m from the signal. After the accident, the tree was lopped considerably
>giving far better sighting distance of the signal (about 600m). A Tangara doing
>115 km/h can easily stop in 600m.
It's not 600 metres. We still can't see the signal protecting the turnout
into the up refuge until we pass under the footbridge at the north end of
the platforms, so chopping the tree has only added another 100 metres or so
to the sighting distance, meaning it's increased from about 80 metres to
about 200 metres.
I know that Tangara's will not stop from 115 km/h in 200 metres because my
near-fatality at Pendle Hill had me travelling at full track speed (100
km/h) through the down platform of that station (I wasn't tabled to stop),
and the police investigators measured the stopping distance as 303 metres.
If I'd been doing 115 km/h (arbitrarily - it's 15 km/h above the legal speed
at Pendle Hill), the stopping distance would have been more like 500 metres.
Despite the fact that I was doing an emergency stop on a falling grade, it
still shows that you'll need about 500 metres to stop at full speed of 115
km/h, even on a slowly rising grade.
McFe...@my-dejanews.com
trai...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> McFe...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > I
> > believe the Tangaras are designed to be easily upgraded to ATP operation
> > should it be installed somethime in the future.
>
> Not any more. The tangara dashboard has been redesigned, leaving nowhere to put
> the ATC equipment. I suppose it would be far easier to retrofit a tangara than
> anything alse though.
The major components of an ATP/ATC system can be stored in equipment cabinets
away from the driver's desk, so minimal/zero space available on the desk does
not preclude relatively easy installation of ATP. Some systems have the MMIs
(Man Machine Interface) built into the speedometer, if one of those systems
were chosen a console redesign may not even be necessary.
>
> --
> David Johnson
> CityRail Guard
> trai...@ozemail.com.au
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~trainman/
>
>
Krel
wrote:
>>> EG in Vic automatic signals that can only display three indications
>>> (clear, warning and stop) have a fixed lower red light. Why
>>
>>The lower red light is a marker light
>>
>>> ? and why
>>> red? If the top light is obscured or out the lower red light tells you
>>> nothing.
>>
Picture this - you are coming around a curve with limited view, you
know that an auto is just around the corner and you see a reflection
of a red light on the rails. In NSW this would be your tip that it is
time to reach for the brake handle; inVic you cannot be sure.
>>Yes it doe's the location of the signal and if there isn't any other indication then
>>it must be treated as a stop signal
>>
In Vic if the red marker light is out it is a defective signal (stop,
call centrol, get a rule1, section3 and proceed with caution). This
applies even if the top light is showing green. The signal can only
show three aspects - G/R, Y/R, R/R. If you see G/black it must be
clear normal speed but the rules say defective signal.
>Also tells you whether the signal is an automatic (permissive) or home
>(absolute) depending upon whether the lights are staggered or not.
>
If automatic signals had a numbering system that was unique to autos
(most do) then a reflectorised number plate would achieve the same
result for much less maintainence (and less train delays).
IMHO national standard three aspect auto should show only one light G,
Y or R. with a reflectorised number plate to indicate location. Extra
aspect could be provided by pulsating. Pulsating Green = extra high
speed clear; Pulsating Yellow = advanced warning.
McFe...@my-dejanews.com
>
> > Talking to the inspectors, they are trying to make the signal before a turn out
> > green over red so that here is no way this can happen again.
Presumably this modification would not occur at higher speed turnouts such as
Glenfield?
>
> How is this for a suggestion? At the signal before a turnout, and also two signals
> before in high speed sections, install an extra top yellow. The signal at the
> turnout would be Yellow over Yellow, and the signal before it could be Yellow over
> Green. Then there would be no mistaking an impending turnout.
I think that the suggestion is logical in that it fits in well with current
signalling practice, although the Yellow over Green is perhaps too close to a
Green over Yellow, and may result in signals being misread. Why not use the
same system that is in operation at Cabramatta and Merrylands?
>
> --
> David Johnson
> CityRail Guard
> trai...@ozemail.com.au
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~trainman/
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
McFe...@my-dejanews.com
trai...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> Robert Harris wrote:
>
> > Talking to the inspectors, they are trying to make the signal before a turn out
> > green over red so that here is no way this can happen again.
Presumably this modification would not occur at higher speed turnouts such as
Glenfield?
>
> How is this for a suggestion? At the signal before a turnout, and also two signals
> before in high speed sections, install an extra top yellow. The signal at the
> turnout would be Yellow over Yellow, and the signal before it could be Yellow over
> Green. Then there would be no mistaking an impending turnout.
I think that the suggestion is logical in that it fits in well with current
signalling practice, although the Yellow over Green is perhaps too close to a
Green over Yellow, and may result in signals being misread. Why not use the
same system that is in operation at Cabramatta and Merrylands?
>
> --
> David Johnson
> CityRail Guard
> trai...@ozemail.com.au
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~trainman/
>
>
Rob
Sydney (Australia)
John Dennis
>
>Notagunzel wrote in message <36ABB95C...@hotmail.com>...
>>Bill Bolton wrote:
>>
>>> McFe...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>>
>
>>Anyway, the meaning of the aspect MEDIUM according to the 67GA (up to date
>as
>>always, I am), is 'Proceed; next signal at caution, but signal within
>braking
>>distance at Stop, or next signal at Medium for turnout junction'. So how
>do
>>drivers know which applies? Telepathy? Perhaps they all should come to
>Victoria
>>and learn how to do it properly!
>>
>>BC
>>
>
>We drivers up here in nsw are to be familiar with the roads on which we are
>to transverse.... its called local road knowledge.... we tend to know where
>all the turnouts are... i dont think we need to head south to learn
>anything....
>
Local road knowledge didn't help at Concord West though - which is the
subject of this thread.
Paul Jones
turnout at 47km/h but 118km/h ?!?!?!
---
Paul Jones
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hills/6776
Eben Levy wrote in message <36AC6EF3...@ozemail.com.au>...
>Bassically it was put down to:
>The driver not been made aware of the diverge to the up relief.
>The driver not been able to see the single correctly.
>
>No Blame was placed on the driver.
>
>The train was doing an estimated 118km/h when he entered the points.
>
>This situation can happen at other locations.
>
>No the findings weren't made public.
>
>McFe...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> It is now more than seven months since the Concord West derailment, and I
>> haven't heard anything mentioned anywhere (even on this ng) about the
results
>> of the inquiry. Have I been living under a rock? Have the results been
made
>> public?
>>
>> I am particularly interested in knowing what the official findings were
>> regarding the cause of the derailment, and the apportionment of
responsibility
>> for same. I am also interested in any recommendations that came out of
the
>> inquiry, especially with regards to signalling and ATP.
>>
>> Can anyone help?
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> Sydney (Australia)
>>
>> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>
>
Robert Harris
McFe...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <36AB3474...@ozemail.com.au>,
> trai...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > Robert Harris wrote:
> >
> > > Talking to the inspectors, they are trying to make the signal before a turn out
> > > green over red so that here is no way this can happen again.
>
> Presumably this modification would not occur at higher speed turnouts such as
> Glenfield?
That is correct.
Rabbit ear type signals like at Cabramatta and Merrylands would be used.
rgds
Robert Harris
Krel wrote:
No, no not Victoria!!! VR signalling is as silly and confusing
I'll agree to that.
Robert Harris
John Dennis wrote:
>
> Local road knowledge didn't help at Concord West though - which is the
> subject of this thread.
>
I have read all messages, about sigs, trees, road knowledge etc.
No one has mentioned that the point clean occured on Mondays, Wedensdays and
Fridays. This has been advised to me by other Hby guards and drivers.
The derailment occured on a Tuesday.
A simple way of preventing things like that is to standardise the point clean.
Make it every day. Well we can't now, no road. Just use the KISS theory.
rgds
McFe...@my-dejanews.com
cra...@lios.apana.org.au (C. Dewick) wrote:
> In <78egen$95o$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> McFe...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> >It is now more than seven months since the Concord West derailment, and I
> >haven't heard anything mentioned anywhere (even on this ng) about the results
> >of the inquiry. Have I been living under a rock? Have the results been made
> >public?
>
> investigation suggests that responsibility is being split 50/50 between
> perway and signals, and the driver will get very little, if anything at all.
>
Many thanks to those who were able to answer my original query, I'm certainly
glad to hear that the driver is likely to be absolved of any blame regarding
the derailment. It is however a shame that the findings haven't been made
public, as the derailment has highlighted a fundamental flaw in the
signalling system, one that should not be ignored as there is still the
potential for a disaster that could easily be averted.
David Johnson
> Good practice should be for the steady aspect to be more restrictive than the
> flashing aspect, as it is in the UK (and NSW single light territory?).
It is not flashing! It is pulsating. There is a difference. In NSW single light
territory, a steady yellow is caution, which is the same as getting a green over
red. A pulsating yellow is a medium, which is the same as green over yellow.
David Johnson
> 118km/h?!?!? Ouch! that's gota hurt. it's bad enough going over a 25km/h
> turnout at 47km/h but 118km/h ?!?!?!
I looked at the track at the site, and I feel that the train may have got
through the turnout OK. Just after the turnout on the outside rail I noticed a
fractured rail. If the extreme force of the train on the light rail caused it
to fracture, that could have caused the derailment.
Jonathan Lau
was about 3 years ago). It was a box sitting on the dashboard that no other 86 Class
had.
Jon Lau
David Johnson wrote:
> McFe...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > That all depends on how much (in dollar terms) a human life is judged to be
> > worth!
>
> It is called acceptable risk.
>
> > Apparently the Government/SRA don't believe ATP is affordable, as they
> > have experimented with it before, but have opted not to proceed with
> > widespread installation. The section of track between Campbelltown and
> > Liverpool is still equipped with the balises that were used for an ATP trial
> > ten years ago. A Tangara and a loco
>
> 8650 was. I thought an 81 or two was equipped too, but I am not sure.
>
> > were furnished with the necessary onboard
> > equipment, but the project didn't make it beyond trial stage, although I
> > believe the Tangaras are designed to be easily upgraded to ATP operation
> > should it be installed somethime in the future.
>
> Not any more. The tangara dashboard has been redesigned, leaving nowhere to put
> the ATC equipment. I suppose it would be far easier to retrofit a tangara than
> anything alse though.
>
Paul Jones
be dammaged. Suprising when you workout how much force was applied to it!
---
Paul Jones
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hills/6776
David Johnson wrote in message <36ADD38D...@ozemail.com.au>...
>Paul Jones wrote:
>
>> 118km/h?!?!? Ouch! that's gota hurt. it's bad enough going over a
25km/h
>> turnout at 47km/h but 118km/h ?!?!?!
>
>I looked at the track at the site, and I feel that the train may have got
>through the turnout OK. Just after the turnout on the outside rail I
noticed a
>fractured rail. If the extreme force of the train on the light rail caused
it
>to fracture, that could have caused the derailment.
>
Homer
David Johnson wrote:
> Robert Harris wrote:
>
> > Talking to the inspectors, they are trying to make the signal before a turn out
> > green over red so that here is no way this can happen again.
>
> How is this for a suggestion? At the signal before a turnout, and also two signals
> before in high speed sections, install an extra top yellow. The signal at the
> turnout would be Yellow over Yellow, and the signal before it could be Yellow over
> Green. Then there would be no mistaking an impending turnout.
i think that's a good idea in theory, but this could only warn for a yellow over
yellow; but what aspect would precede a yellow over red? some seroius thought would
have to go into this otherwise it would cause yet another ambiguity
David Johnson
> No one has mentioned that the point clean occured on Mondays, Wedensdays and
> Fridays. This has been advised to me by other Hby guards and drivers.
> The derailment occured on a Tuesday.
The reason for it occuring on the Tuesday was that Monday was a Public Holiday
(June long weekend). The last time those points had been used was 96 hours prior,
meaning the points really should not have been used anyway, as the 72 hours had
been exceeded. There was a story going around that there was an argument prior to
the train leaving Hornsby as to whether the train would be doing the point clean.
The story goes that the driver was told that he would not be doing it. Don't know
about the accuracy of the story, but it sounds good... :-)
rffe...@socs.uts.edu.au
trai...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> The reason for it occuring on the Tuesday was that Monday was a Public Holiday
> (June long weekend). The last time those points had been used was 96 hours prior,
> meaning the points really should not have been used anyway, as the 72 hours had
> been exceeded. There was a story going around that there was an argument prior to
> the train leaving Hornsby as to whether the train would be doing the point clean.
> The story goes that the driver was told that he would not be doing it. Don't know
> about the accuracy of the story, but it sounds good... :-)
Ultimately, in a high capacity commuter rail system like Sydney's, it really
shouldn't matter whether the driver knew he was going to take the turnout or
not. The signalling system should safely handle any change to the planned
routing of the train, and should never assume that the driver knows his exact
route.
>
> --
> David Johnson
> CityRail Guard
> trai...@ozemail.com.au
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~trainman/
>
>
L & D
rffe...@socs.uts.edu.au wrote:
> In article <36ADDD16...@ozemail.com.au>,
> trai...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >
> > The reason for it occuring on the Tuesday was that Monday was a Public Holiday
> > (June long weekend). The last time those points had been used was 96 hours prior,
> > meaning the points really should not have been used anyway, as the 72 hours had
> > been exceeded. There was a story going around that there was an argument prior to
> > the train leaving Hornsby as to whether the train would be doing the point clean.
> > The story goes that the driver was told that he would not be doing it. Don't know
> > about the accuracy of the story, but it sounds good... :-)
>
> Ultimately, in a high capacity commuter rail system like Sydney's, it really
> shouldn't matter whether the driver knew he was going to take the turnout or
> not. The signalling system should safely handle any change to the planned
> routing of the train,
What's the point of having a Qualified driver then ???
rodjg
relief is clipped to the main up and about 50 metres of the up relief is
missing. Any one have any info on if and when the relief line will be
re-instated?
Cheers
Rod Gayford
Homer <mdo...@mail.usyd.edu.au> wrote in article
<36AEF47A...@mail.usyd.edu.au>...
>
>
> David Johnson wrote:
>
> > Robert Harris wrote:
> >
> > > Talking to the inspectors, they are trying to make the signal before
a turn out
> > > green over red so that here is no way this can happen again.
> >
> > How is this for a suggestion? At the signal before a turnout, and also
two signals
> > before in high speed sections, install an extra top yellow. The signal
at the
> > turnout would be Yellow over Yellow, and the signal before it could be
Yellow over
> > Green. Then there would be no mistaking an impending turnout.
>
> i think that's a good idea in theory, but this could only warn for a
yellow over
> yellow; but what aspect would precede a yellow over red? some seroius
thought would
> have to go into this otherwise it would cause yet another ambiguity
>
rffe...@socs.uts.edu.au
L & D <dai...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > shouldn't matter whether the driver knew he was going to take the turnout or
> > not. The signalling system should safely handle any change to the planned
> > routing of the train,
>
> What's the point of having a Qualified driver then ???
Um, to drive the train? Is that a serious question?
What is the point of having divergance indications if the timetable, points
cleaning roster or signaller's fancy is to form the basis of the safeworking
system?
Yuri J Sos
>In Vic if the red marker light is out it is a defective signal (stop,
>call centrol, get a rule1, section3 and proceed with caution). This
>applies even if the top light is showing green. The signal can only
>show three aspects - G/R, Y/R, R/R. If you see G/black it must be
>clear normal speed but the rules say defective signal.
I didn't think marker lights failed in Victoria....... don't they just
get very dim? AFAIK a dim marker light does not make an auto
defective.
On my way back from Port Augusta I noticed that some of the autos in
SA have a (reflectorised?) red spot in the position for an auto marker
light: this seems sensible to reduce maintenance costs.
Regards
Yuri
--
==================================
Yuri J Sos
Melbourne VIC AUS
Reply to: stea...@enternet.com.au
Web site at http://people.enternet.com.au/~steam4me
Visit Steam Media Productions' site at http://people.connect.net.au/~steam
Latest production "1997 - The Victorian Year in Steam" now available
==================================
David Johnson
> In <36AB2F39...@ozemail.com.au> David Johnson <trai...@ozemail.com.au> writes:
> >It was actually a very large tree completely obscuring the top light until about
> >50m from the signal. After the accident, the tree was lopped considerably
> >giving far better sighting distance of the signal (about 600m). A Tangara doing
> >115 km/h can easily stop in 600m.
>
> It's not 600 metres. We still can't see the signal protecting the turnout
> into the up refuge until we pass under the footbridge at the north end of
> the platforms, so chopping the tree has only added another 100 metres or so
> to the sighting distance, meaning it's increased from about 80 metres to
> about 200 metres.
I had a look yesterday. You can now see the top light approx 287 metres before the
turnout. Before the tree was lopped, the sighting distance was some 92 metres from the
turnout.
Paul Jones
---
Paul Jones
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hills/6776
David Johnson wrote in message <36B321F8...@ozemail.com.au>...
David Johnson
> Are you sure it was about 287m, not 288m or 286m??
No. It could be as much as 20m more than that.
David Langley
David Johnson wrote:
> Paul Jones wrote:
>
> > Are you sure it was about 287m, not 288m or 286m??
>
> No. It could be as much as 20m more than that.
>
>
Perhaps even 22m or 23m.
DEL
Robert Harris
David Johnson wrote:
> Robert Harris wrote:
>
> > No one has mentioned that the point clean occured on Mondays, Wedensdays and
> > Fridays. This has been advised to me by other Hby guards and drivers.
> > The derailment occured on a Tuesday.
>
> The reason for it occuring on the Tuesday was that Monday was a Public Holiday
> (June long weekend). The last time those points had been used was 96 hours prior,
> meaning the points really should not have been used anyway, as the 72 hours had
> been exceeded. There was a story going around that there was an argument prior to
> the train leaving Hornsby as to whether the train would be doing the point clean.
> The story goes that the driver was told that he would not be doing it. Don't know
> about the accuracy of the story, but it sounds good... :-)
>
> --
> David Johnson
Thats what I got from the guard, same story.
By the way he has now taken up duties at Penrith Box.
rgds
semi.reti...@xtra.co.spam.egggs.nz
<dj_a...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Are you sure it was about 287m, not 288m or 286m??
Reminds me of a newspaper report of an aircraft flying at 9144 m.
Obviously the reporter has pulled out a calculator and made a hard
conversion from 30,000 feet to metres.
And then there are newspaper reports of 600mW power stations but I am
drifting off topic....
David Johnson
> And then there are newspaper reports of 600mW power stations but I am
> drifting off topic....
Sounds like an AA battery. 1.5V @ 400mA = 600mW.
Tony Gatt
> EG in Vic automatic signals that can only display three indications
> (clear, warning and stop) have a fixed lower red light.
Incorrect. All speed signalling aspects are available on an Automatic Signal in
Victoria.
It is very possible to get Medium speed aspects.
> Why?
> and why red?
Red is used as one of the colors for Victorian speed signalling. In some areas, the
top aspect is a fixed red, showing only medium speed aspects on that signal.
> If the top light is obscured or out the lower red light tells you nothing.
Route knowledge should tell you when you are in a 3 position speed signalling area.
If the top light is extinguished, then you would assume the signal to be at the most
restrictive aspect ie: RED
the red light on the bottom tells you that there is a signal there and it is
defective.
> --
Thanks, Tony.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no rest for the wicked. They are having too much fun."
Visit my Homepage: http://www.eisa.net.au/~tgatt/
** Updated: 0:53 AM 02-12-98 **
It's here: Railpix - Australian Railway Photography.
http://railpix.freeservers.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Krel
>> EG in Vic automatic signals that can only display three indications
>> (clear, warning and stop) have a fixed lower red light.
>
>Incorrect. All speed signalling aspects are available on an Automatic Signal in
>Victoria.
>It is very possible to get Medium speed aspects.
>
three indications". IE Some autos display the whole range, some only
display three indications. Not every auto can display every possible
aspect. As a general rule autos out in the section only display three
aspects (G/R, Y/R, R/R.) Autos approaching loops, etc can show medium
speed and reduce to medium speed aspects. Those autos that can only
display three indications have a fixed lower red light.
I was asking why you need two lights to do what one can do; signal
clear, caution or stop?
>> and why red?
>
>Red is used as one of the colors for Victorian speed signalling. In some areas, the
>top aspect is a fixed red, showing only medium speed aspects on that signal.
>
Granted; where an auto is used for Medium speed aspects it makes sense
to use an upper red light. But where they don't it doesn't.
>> If the top light is obscured or out the lower red light tells you nothing.
>
>Route knowledge should tell you when you are in a 3 position speed signalling area.
>
Yes, But you still have no idea what the signal is displaying. In NSW
the lower red light is only illuminated if the top light is red or
out. If the top light is yellow or green there is no lower red light -
less risk of confusion.
>If the top light is extinguished, then you would assume the signal to be at the most
>restrictive aspect ie: RED
same everywhere.
>the red light on the bottom tells you that there is a signal there and it is
>defective.
>
That is my point. If the signal is one that only shows G/R, Y/R or
R/R, the bottom light being out should not stop trains. Green over
black on this signal is obviously clear but the rules state that I
must stop, contact control and then proceed with extreme caution
expecting to find a broken rail, defective points or another train.
All this after seeing a top Green!!! Sounds like a waste of time,
brakes and fuel to me but rules is rules.
Cheers
Krel
Just another eccentric crank.
Paul Jones
---
Paul Jones
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hills/6776
semi.reti...@xtra.co.SPAM.egggs.nz wrote in message
<36b658d1...@news.xtra.co.nz>...
>On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:58:30 +1100, "Paul Jones"
><dj_a...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>>Are you sure it was about 287m, not 288m or 286m??
>
>Reminds me of a newspaper report of an aircraft flying at 9144 m.
>Obviously the reporter has pulled out a calculator and made a hard
>conversion from 30,000 feet to metres.
>
Tony Gatt
David Johnson wrote:
> Paul Jones wrote:
>
> > 118km/h?!?!? Ouch! that's gota hurt. it's bad enough going over a 25km/h
> > turnout at 47km/h but 118km/h ?!?!?!
>
> I looked at the track at the site, and I feel that the train may have got
> through the turnout OK. Just after the turnout on the outside rail I noticed a
> fractured rail. If the extreme force of the train on the light rail caused it
> to fracture, that could have caused the derailment.
>
At which point did you inspect the rail?
Was it before or after the derailment?
Which carriage caused a fracture of the rail?
Was it a fracture or was it a break?
If it was a fracture, it must be still there... so..
Is its position relative to the derailing point of the train?
What qualifications do you have to assume that a train travelling at 118km/h would
make it through a set of points rated for 25km/h anyway?
For those of you out there that remember Laverton in the 70's, a train travelling
some 30km's per hour less trying to negotiate a set of 25km/h points in the reverse
position, did not only derail the train, but forcibly removed the points, a signal
gantry and the life of a passenger.
I do believe that ill informed assumptions degrade the level of information that
can be provided in this newsgroup.
One day the results may be made public, only then will we really know the outcome..
Over to you David...
> --
> David Johnson
> CityRail Guard
> trai...@ozemail.com.au
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~trainman/
--
David Johnson
> This I cannot believe...
Fine, don't then.
> At which point did you inspect the rail?
Where it was sitting on the ground.
> Was it before or after the derailment?
Time or distance? Time : After. Distance : At.
> Which carriage caused a fracture of the rail?
Probably the first, as it was the first car that dug in to the embankment causing it to
be twisted 180 degrees to the direction it was facing by the movement of the second
car.
> Was it a fracture or was it a break?
Yes.
> If it was a fracture, it must be still there... so..
> Is its position relative to the derailing point of the train?
Yes. Below is a diagram of the up tracks, with the X showing the location of the
fractured rail. (And derailment site)
Platform /X----------
-----------/------------
> What qualifications do you have to assume that a train travelling at 118km/h would
> make it through a set of points rated for 25km/h anyway?
There was no visible evidence of derailment in the vicinity of the points. There were
no flange marks on any sleepers. There was no damage to the points. It would have
been very rough, but the train could have conceivably stayed on the track had the track
remained intact. The last car and a half of the train which did not reach point X were
not derailed. All other cars derailed. As for qualifications for assumption, I think
of the classic line in Under Siege 2 "Assumption is the mother of all f***ups".
> For those of you out there that remember Laverton in the 70's, a train travelling
> some 30km's per hour less trying to negotiate a set of 25km/h points in the reverse
> position, did not only derail the train, but forcibly removed the points, a signal
> gantry and the life of a passenger.
Is this relevant? What was the track condition? What was the condition of the
points? The points at Concord West were in very good condition, but the track in the
up refuge was not.
> I do believe that ill informed assumptions degrade the level of information that
> can be provided in this newsgroup.
I am merely providing another theory as to what might have happened. What I posted are
my beliefs, and are possibilities. I don't see what you hope to gain by being nasty
about it. Were you at the accident site to see it for yourself?
> One day the results may be made public, only then will we really know the outcome..
True. But some people will not believe the outcome no matter what it is. I know many
people who do not believe that the 1990 3801 accident was caused by sand. These are
ill-informed people claiming they know something that the SRA engineers do not. (People
who were not at the accident site, mind you.)
tony...@hotmail.com
trai...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> Tony Gatt wrote:
*snip*
>
> > Which carriage caused a fracture of the rail?
>
> Probably the first, as it was the first car that dug in to the embankment
causing it to
> be twisted 180 degrees to the direction it was facing by the movement of the
second
> car.
>
> > Was it a fracture or was it a break?
>
> Yes.
Clever boy!
I think
> of the classic line in Under Siege 2 "Assumption is the mother of all
f***ups".
Couldn't agree more :)
*snip again*
>
> I am merely providing another theory as to what might have happened. What I
posted are
> my beliefs, and are possibilities. I don't see what you hope to gain by being
nasty
> about it. Were you at the accident site to see it for yourself?
No I wasn't. Derailment sites are tresspass zones, wouldn't find me near one
without permission.
not being nasty David, Just trying to point out a little something I think you
have answered yourself.. read on..
> I know many
> people who do not believe that the 1990 3801 accident was caused by sand.
>These are ill-informed people claiming they know something that the SRA
>engineers do not. (People who were not at the accident site, mind you.)
Ahhh, I think it was that last comment, not by any means infering that someone
of you high standard of knowledge would ever be ill informed, but one would be
assuming that you know something that others don't...
and just back tracking, about the last couple of cars not being derailed...
in the Rockbank Steel train derailment, the derailed train consisting of 14
wagons came to a stop some distance from the original derailment point, which
was marked by a peice of rail - 6ft or more in length being broken out.
The last 2 wagons were still on the track, but the 12 wagons in front of them
were sprawled all over the place..
Sometimes things don't follow the logical pattern.
maybe the driver could tell us what really happened...
> --
> David Johnson
> CityRail Guard
> trai...@ozemail.com.au
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~trainman/
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
David Johnson
> Now we are getting more toward what it should be.. PROBABLY..
>
That is what it always was. Perhaps you should read the original message again:
I looked at the track at the site, and I feel that the train may have got
through the turnout OK. Just after the turnout on the outside rail I noticed a
fractured rail. If the extreme force of the train on the light rail caused it
to fracture, that could have caused the derailment.
> > I know many
> > people who do not believe that the 1990 3801 accident was caused by sand.
> >These are ill-informed people claiming they know something that the SRA
> >engineers do not. (People who were not at the accident site, mind you.)
>
> Ahhh, I think it was that last comment, not by any means infering that someone
> of you high standard of knowledge would ever be ill informed, but one would be
> assuming that you know something that others don't...
For starters, I have not seen a report into the accident, so I don't feel that I am
disagreeing with any experts. Secondly, the crucial piece of evidence (the
fractured rail) was removed by someone who was not authorised to do so. I do not
know whether it was examined prior to removal, but if it wasn't, there is very
little chance of this being investigated.
> maybe the driver could tell us what really happened...
I don't think the driver is talking about the incident to anyone.
Tony Gatt
Krel wrote:
> >> EG in Vic automatic signals that can only display three indications
> >> (clear, warning and stop) have a fixed lower red light.
> >
> *snip*
> Please read again. I said "Vic automatic signals that can only display
> three indications". IE Some autos display the whole range, some only
> display three indications. Not every auto can display every possible
> aspect. As a general rule autos out in the section only display three
> aspects (G/R, Y/R, R/R.) Autos approaching loops, etc can show medium
> speed and reduce to medium speed aspects. Those autos that can only
> display three indications have a fixed lower red light.
>
> I was asking why you need two lights to do what one can do; signal
> clear, caution or stop?
>
its just the fact that they (Victorians) have used a two light system for speed
signalling. The red single marker is purely there to keep the consistency.
> >> and why red?
> >
> >Red is used as one of the colors for Victorian speed signalling. In some areas, the
> >top aspect is a fixed red, showing only medium speed aspects on that signal.
> >
> Granted; where an auto is used for Medium speed aspects it makes sense
> to use an upper red light. But where they don't it doesn't.
It is used to indicate the difference between Normal and Medium.
Easiest way to describe a Victorian signal-
O| - Top head - Normal Speed
O| - Middle Head - Medium speed.
漏 - Bottom head (optional - only found on some Home signals) LOW speed.
by using these and keeping the speed signals consistent, it should create less confusion,
than would say..
going from single lights to double lights to single lights..
> >> If the top light is obscured or out the lower red light tells you nothing.
> >
> >Route knowledge should tell you when you are in a 3 position speed signalling area.
> >
> Yes, But you still have no idea what the signal is displaying. In NSW
> the lower red light is only illuminated if the top light is red or
> out. If the top light is yellow or green there is no lower red light -
> less risk of confusion.
What would happen if the 2nd red light failed?
> >If the top light is extinguished, then you would assume the signal to be at the most
> >restrictive aspect ie: RED
>
> same everywhere.
>
> >the red light on the bottom tells you that there is a signal there and it is
> >defective.
> >
> That is my point. If the signal is one that only shows G/R, Y/R or
> R/R, the bottom light being out should not stop trains. Green over
> black on this signal is obviously clear but the rules state that I
> must stop, contact control and then proceed with extreme caution
> expecting to find a broken rail, defective points or another train.
> All this after seeing a top Green!!! Sounds like a waste of time,
> brakes and fuel to me but rules is rules.
I agree, If the signal is showing some form of proceed indication, then a stop should not
be necessary.
> Cheers
>
> Krel
>
> Just another eccentric crank.
--
Thanks, Tony.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I put the fun in dysfunctional."
Oh no!! My Homepage address... what is it????
Krel
>>
>> I was asking why you need two lights to do what one can do; signal
>> clear, caution or stop?
>>
>
>its just the fact that they (Victorians) have used a two light system for speed
>signalling. The red single marker is purely there to keep the consistency.
>
R/Y, R/R at some locations.
BTW at Richmond on the Up ex Caulfield I can go G/R, Y/G, R/Y, R/R in
LESS THAN A TRAIN LENGTH!!!!!! The first signal says Clear NORMAL
SPEED so, legally I can do 50 km/h; the second says reduce to 40 km/h
so I can continue at 50 and be down to 40 at the third signal, by
which time it is too late - I am either heading off to Parliament or
about to cut a Sandy spark in half :-).
>> >> and why red?
>> >
>It is used to indicate the difference between Normal and Medium.
>
Why not a white marker light? It does the same job but does not
reflect red on the rails as I come around a blind curve.
>> Yes, But you still have no idea what the signal is displaying. In NSW
>> the lower red light is only illuminated if the top light is red or
>> out. If the top light is yellow or green there is no lower red light -
>> less risk of confusion.
>
>What would happen if the 2nd red light failed?
>
Same as now, the signal would be very, very dark ;-).
>> >the red light on the bottom tells you that there is a signal there and it is
>> >defective.
>> >
>> That is my point. If the signal is one that only shows G/R, Y/R or
>> R/R, the bottom light being out should not stop trains. Green over
>> black on this signal is obviously clear but the rules state that I
>> must stop, contact control and then proceed with extreme caution
>> expecting to find a broken rail, defective points or another train.
>> All this after seeing a top Green!!! Sounds like a waste of time,
>> brakes and fuel to me but rules is rules.
>
>I agree, If the signal is showing some form of proceed indication, then a stop should not
>be necessary.
>
Agreed, but the rules state differently.
BTW anyone notice that some autos have had their lower red light
replaced by a red reflector? Much better idea (no chance of it going
out) but is it in the rules??
Tony Gatt
Krel wrote:
> *snipped lots*
>
> BTW anyone notice that some autos have had their lower red light
> replaced by a red reflector? Much better idea (no chance of it going
> out) but is it in the rules??
Where have they done this??
The first time I ever saw that was at Snowtown in S.A.
Remember thinking it was a hell of a way to save on globes.
> Cheers
>
> Krel
>
> Just another eccentric crank.
--
Krel
>>
>> BTW anyone notice that some autos have had their lower red light
>> replaced by a red reflector? Much better idea (no chance of it going
>> out) but is it in the rules??
>
>Where have they done this??
>
(at Craigieburn).