Boltar wrote:

On 17 Jun, 09:15, Chris Tolley wrote:
employees will have good files, and one blemish shouldn't necessarily
lead to that file being closed.

If he'd been going a bit faster and had a collision and killed
himself, the other driver and possibly some passengers too, would you
still just consider it a "blemish"? And don't say "well he didn't".
That was down to pure luck the other train had stopped, not any action
on his part.

If those things had happened, debating sacking would be rather odd.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632928.html
(40 187 at Crewe Locomotive Works, 22 Sep 1979)

"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
...
Boltar wrote:

If he'd been going a bit faster and had a collision and killed
himself, the other driver and possibly some passengers too, would you
still just consider it a "blemish"? And don't say "well he didn't".
That was down to pure luck the other train had stopped, not any action
on his part.

If those things had happened, debating sacking would be rather odd.

While on the face of it the incident appears to be entirely down to the
driver, we need the RAIB inquiry to assess the psychological factors into
why it happened and recommend ways of preventing a recurrence. Only when
that has been done can a fair assessment be made of the driver's
culpability.

Peter

In article .com,
chunky munky writes
Stations without station starters are Croxley (Southbound) and
Chesham, some others do have them a fair way out of the platform.

Chesham surprises me. After all, Mill Hill East has a starter.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Jun 17, 11:30 pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" c...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
In article .com,
chunky munky writes

Stations without station starters are Croxley (Southbound) and
Chesham, some others do have them a fair way out of the platform.

Chesham surprises me. After all, Mill Hill East has a starter.



It must be pretty difficult for there to be a train in front in either
case (or for the train in the station to have got past it on the way
in). If there's one coming the other way, there's a bigger problem
than just the train in the station leaving.

In article . com,
MIG wrote:
On Jun 17, 11:30 pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" c...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
Chesham surprises me. After all, Mill Hill East has a starter.

It must be pretty difficult for there to be a train in front in either
case (or for the train in the station to have got past it on the way
in). If there's one coming the other way, there's a bigger problem
than just the train in the station leaving.

It may have been left in place due to it's ability to regulate the
service; you don't want a train sitting just north of Finchley
Central for 15 minutes waiting for the time it is timetabled to
slot into the southbound service.

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

On 17 Jun, 16:24, wrote:
On 17 Jun, 15:36, Boltar wrote:

On 17 Jun, 09:15, Chris Tolley wrote:
If he'd been going a bit faster and had a collision and killed
himself, the other driver and possibly some passengers too, would you
still just consider it a "blemish"? And don't say "well he didn't".
That was down to pure luck the other train had stopped, not any action
on his part.

I'd hardly call the fact that a train was standing at a signal showing
a red aspect due to the section ahead being occupied "pure luck".

If that stopped train had been running a bit late the train from
camden could have reached that signal before the other driver who
would not have been stopped at the signal before because at that time
the section in front *wasn't* occupied. I'll let you work out the
rest.

B2003

On 15 Jun, 07:33, "Clive D. W. Feather" c...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
In article .com,
writes

Um, no signal *does* mean green. Unlit signal - not the same thing -
means red.
Does it?
No signal when there should be one, as you pointed out = unlit signal
= red.

I'll have to think about this. There is no "where there should be one"
in railway signalling, but if a driver's route knowledge leads him to
think that there should be a signal at some landmark (in this case, the
headwall) then he should treat its absence as a danger.

There is on the underground. LU's signalling standards state that
every platform shall be provided with a platform starting signal. The
only locations that I'm aware of which are not compliant are Chesham,
Croxley SB and Kensington Olympia.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 05:38:25 -0700, wrote:

On 15 Jun, 07:33, "Clive D. W. Feather" c...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
In article .com,
writes

Um, no signal *does* mean green. Unlit signal - not the same thing -
means red.
Does it?
No signal when there should be one, as you pointed out = unlit signal
= red.

I'll have to think about this. There is no "where there should be one"
in railway signalling, but if a driver's route knowledge leads him to
think that there should be a signal at some landmark (in this case, the
headwall) then he should treat its absence as a danger.

There is on the underground. LU's signalling standards state that
every platform shall be provided with a platform starting signal. The
only locations that I'm aware of which are not compliant are Chesham,
Croxley SB and Kensington Olympia.

Aren't both these operated as though they were long sidings?

There was an accident in the USA a few years ago. Because of the
inertia of the heavy freight trains the distant is a long way before
the stop signal. But in this case there was a platform stop between
them. A commuter train stopped there and sped off because the engineer
forgot that the distant was at yellow, running through the stop signal
protecting a junction with the main line and colliding head on with an
Amtrak train.

There are near collisions everyday as the trains are only a few feet
apart when passing !

Nears dont count, its only the ones where people get mangled and
Netowork Rail lose their bonus tha tcount.

On 18 Jun, 15:52, Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 05:38:25 -0700, wrote:
On 15 Jun, 07:33, "Clive D. W. Feather" c...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
In article .com,
writes

Um, no signal *does* mean green. Unlit signal - not the same thing -
means red.
Does it?
No signal when there should be one, as you pointed out = unlit signal
= red.

I'll have to think about this. There is no "where there should be one"
in railway signalling, but if a driver's route knowledge leads him to
think that there should be a signal at some landmark (in this case, the
headwall) then he should treat its absence as a danger.

There is on the underground. LU's signalling standards state that
every platform shall be provided with a platform starting signal. The
only locations that I'm aware of which are not compliant are Chesham,
Croxley SB and Kensington Olympia.

Aren't both these operated as though they were long sidings?

Effectively, yes.

There is a home signal at Chesham, but it's associated with the speed
control more than anything else.
Likewise, there are only a handful (IIRC 2 or 3) of track circuits
tere, the main part of the branch back to Chalfont being catered for
by axle counters.