I don't think it was the systems of Safeworking (im talking about Australia here) its the employee's who may have been negligent or Managements lack of training.
I thought one of the recommendations Justice Mc Inerney made from the Glenbrook disaster was Safeworking Qualified staff and other staff that have Hand Ops 1, 2 and 3 to attend SMS ( Safety Management Systems) training courses every 13 weeks for refreshers on rules and subsquent training on rule changes.The last SMS I did was 16th Aug 2004, ands its been more than
13 weeks since I did my last SMS course (SMS2.6), another lack of interest by State Rail Authority/Railcorp Management
There was and is certainly a hierachy of superiority, but I've never seen it expressed as such. In older times the "Limited Express" passenger would have other trains sidinged to give it free passage. Nowadays there are so few trains that the situation scarcely arises. Passenger trains run in daylight hours and goods trains generally have been blocked into heavy trains that run at night.
Do you know how and when these "other" trains were put into the sidings? Did they run by timetable - trainorder, or was the line controlled from a central control statiion in the manner of CTC?
That would depend on the date. In the mid 1950s, as a small boy, I used to watch the local station master (South Island Main Trunk) operate by "block table machine" and timetable. AFAIK he would be notified of changes by telephone, and those changes would be noted in an official ledger. (book being a too insignificant term :-) The Wellington-Hutt main line, which also handled the fairly intensive commuter traffic, was effectively CTC from the 1930s with upper quadrant 3 aspect semophore signals. This was (progressively) upgraded in the 1960s-70s to multi-aspect colour lights. (including "call on") By the 1970s the two "Main Trunk" routes (at least) were operated by colour lights operated CTC style from major stations. AFAIK the control points were sytematically reduced in number over the years, until, during the 1990s the Christchurch - Invercargill route was operated on the night shift from one control office in Chch.
To be 100% specific we would have to pick a precise route.
It's one of the few things I actually remember about being a toddler during the war - being taken to feed the 'chookie hens' or 'tookie hens'. These were the hens which were kept in allotments near our home, as a private supply of eggs for their owners. I don't think the owners ever had to feed them themselves since every toddler came along with all manner of food scraps. :-)
One dispatcher in Christchurch, 500 odd km distant, two way radios, GPS location and absolutely no signals, not even a turnout position indicator. No superiority, just a passing siding at about the halfway point where the two drivers (single manning) swap trains so that they end up near home at the end of their shifts.
While it might technically be the fault of the engine driver that failed to turnout into the passing loop, it sounds like the railway is conducting unsafe operating practices. Single man operating should not be allowed. The Dispatcher is also at fault for not paying attention to the GPS and contacting the engine driver. I am assuming that the DX has duplicate GPS info as well as the engine driver. This is not a simple case of one man's error or incompetence. It is much more complicated than that.
General term I use to describe systems using automatic signals which operate from train detection devices, following block principles. It is an international news group, not NSW Railcorp only. The termonology you are using does not exist for example for the prototype I model, the NSWGR. My statement is accurate, the signals are automatic, using general termonology.
I see no answer from Nathan, why not?
Why don't you answer my question instead of covering up behind NSW Railcorp jargon. So far you have not been able to address any issue raised other than sprout definitions and blame the driver in one accident. An over simplistic approach. I know what block working is. It depends what definition you are using. There is more than one type of block working internationally, and there are differences between each systems rules. What NSW railcorp calls block working is only relevant if that is the only system being discussed. I don't recall any one defining the terminology to be used in this news group to be NSW Railcorp only.
Why should I spend hours reading a document which has no relevance to the NSWGR I model. Why should all the other readers of this thread have to get a copy of this document to understand what you are talking about?
From your lack of technical argument and need to resort to name calling, and relying on the 'I am more qualified than you about this subject' argument.
Then supply useful information for model railway builders interested in building prototypical layouts or provide information which prove the argument on safety one way or the other.
As you say, automatic block is not defined in your procedures, it's clear you either don't know or simply hiding behind jargon. CAN could mean 2 tin cans and a piece of string for communicating.
Mark's promised not to reply to my posts.
What has the current system's specific terminology to describe specific systems in use on one specific railway got to do with a general discussion about safeworking on many railways. Not much. Your qualifications do not make you an expert at designing safeworking for the prototype or model railways. Why don't you explain how you operate your model railway, showing how it should be done the Railcorp way?
I over looked it, just to annoy you.The rules were changed yes but basically stayed the same with a new name given to them, 7 Safeworking manuals compressed into 3.
You have no idea about safeworking so I gave you a reference to 3 books you need to take a look at, when you have a clue get back tov me and Ill be happy to pick the eyes out of the safeworking Rules, I have already found a mistake in the 600 series rules..Otherwise until then you have two choices terrance, email me privately away from the group or join my killfile list.
Normal procedure is to blame the driver! The driver missed sighting the loop because of the thick fog. The dispatcher was absent from his post for around 20 minutes (toilet and obtaining coffee) Yes, he has the GPS information and is supposed to be monitoring it. With perhaps four trains to monitor over the 500 km line in an eight hour shift, it's not surprising his attention isn't rivetted for the entire shift.
In article snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz, Greg.P. at snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz wrote on 1/30/05 21:52:
Given that I work with real trains, I DEFINITELY have insight into how trains are kept separate! :-)
For example, suppose my engineer did not heed the signals' aspects, and we collided with another train? As the conductor, my neck is on the line, ESPECIALLY if I failed to take action to prevent the accident in the first place.
DCC promotes alertness on the operators' parts, as they must pay attention to the signals displayed to keep the trains from colliding.
You are conceding the "DCC v DC" argument in favor of the former?
There are solutions available to modelers to accommodate detection and signaling compatibility issues that arise with the adoption of DCC.
Having said that, I must admit I'm saying that with also a certain degree of bias: the club of which I'm a member, Pacific Southern
formatting link
is blessed with an "electronics brain trust" which has given us features like homebuilt detection and signaling technologies for our DC-powered HO layout. (Our signals are now driven by a PC for which the homeowner wrote the necessary software.) With that in mind, were the club to switch wholesale to DCC (certain of the newer towers have a rotary setting for DCC), we could find solutions to the problems, or buy the necessary devices - and the club is well-off, too.
To most modelers, the terms are practically synonymous.
Okay...thanks for the clarification. I was under the (mistaken) impression that you were "vehemently" anti-DCC. I stand corrected.
Actually, it's simpler than you think. Since you say you're modeling the German railway system circa 1920s, can I safely assume each locomotive has a number? Then you can use the most natural of addresses available to you: the locomotive number.
That's the procedure in North American practice, anyway, as specified in the operating rules, and also used when addressing a specific train in specific situations, such as permission to pass a Stop signal, for example, or when its symbol is not known: "Foreman Smith to CSXT 8753...." Enter the engine number in your DCC controller, and off you go.
Actually, given the state of advancement of all things technological and digital, even outside DCC, we've barely scratched the surface of capabilites. Sound is currently making itself known, and transponders to locate one's cars about a layout are on the horizon, with, perhaps, bona fide defect detectors. Right now, I cannot see the limit of DCC's capabilities.
It is interesting that air crashes in which the pilot(s) are killed are always "Pilot error" while those that are survived usually lead to the discovery of serious flaws in the aircraft itself.
obtaining coffee)
shift, it's not surprising his
It most likely will be from here on out............. The new guy, that is. This one is surely sacked.
Ahh, you have signals! I've been told that DCC replaces all that stuff. :-)
No, all along I've said there are situations where DCC has the advantages and situations where DC/analogue has the advantages.
Certainly, but at that point the advantage of "simplicity of wiring with DCC" has disappeared.
That's where I'm at. Some of those DCC "solutions" are not only complex and expensive, but they also eliminate the possibility/compatibility of DC/analogue.
Certainly, but as you are experienced, you'll agree with me that they definitely are not.
I'm vehemently against advising beginners that DCC is the _only_ option worth considering.
The numbers are not distinguishable at 3-4 feet.because they are relatively small. Like the prototype I model, several types/classes of locomotive are represented by four or five examples.
Certainly.
No-one seems keen to answer my question regarding (DCC) sound!
Sure, I'm searching for that one right now.
Not very long ago it was the number of locomotives. Right now, if one sets a loco's acceleration and braking rate, it stays the same whether there is no train behind or an overweight train - hardly prototypical. Sound - very nice, but I don't want twenty locos on a layout all roaring away. Software - this needs to match one's prototype in terminology and in operation.
There are two pilots in the family - you're making me nervous!!! ;-)
obtaining coffee)
shift, it's not surprising his
My friends and aquaintances are the old guard who were laid off when this "modern" system was instituted and drivers - the 'I told you so's went on so long and so loud that I never asked about the dispatcher's welfare.
Those damn drivers seem to get quite a bias when one (or two) of their number get knocked off!
I am a pilot myself and my older brother was a career professional pilot. We are both doing just fine.
"modern" system was instituted and
about the dispatcher's
get knocked off!
I proposed using a system something like GPS to control trains remotely about 25 years ago. Inside the locomotive was instrumentation to gather data that is customarily gathered by the engine driver's eyes, ears and butt. All the data would be fed to a computer onboard and copied to a controller at a remote location. The computer would drive the train and one person would ride along in the event of a failure of some kind. The system would have to be CTC and the dispatcher would only have to note the locations of the trains and monitor the route selection. The trains and the system would set all routes and meets would be automatically executed by the system's master computer. Trains would need no schedules or timetables or train orders and would run whenever a train was needed. Fully automatic from top to bottom. So far, it hasn't happened yet. It will. Properly programmed and supplied with accurate positional data, coupled with data on coupler strain, current draw and several other variables, a computer can drive a train better than a human engine driver. Such a system however, does require that those who remain employed keep their heads out of their arses.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.