Safeworking breach near Revesby on 10 July 2013 (Page 1) / Sydney Suburban / Forums / Railpage

johnlush Junior Train Controller

Location: Summer Hill NSW 2130

From the Australian Transport Safety Bureau website:

"At 1000 an area controller on the Revesby panel at Sydney Trains' Sydenham Signal Box handed over to a relief area controller. During this handover, the limits of a planned Local Possession Authority (LPA) on the Up Main line between Revesby and Turella were discussed. However, both area controllers incorrectly assumed the limits of the LPA were at the City end of Revesby (clear of No 51 points) rather than the Country end (clear of No 55 points) and blocking facilities were applied. At 1020 the LPA was formally granted. At 1050 passenger train 709C traversed No 55 points and entered the possession area on the Up Main line and immediately ran over railway track signals (detonators) and was brought to a stand. There were no reports of injuries, or damage."

Trains 707D and 709D from Macarthur to the City were said to be involved.

Sponsored advertisement

bowralcommuter Chief Commissioner

Location: Asleep on a Manly Ferry

Someone's going to get a verbal bashing I'd say, don't know enough about the rail industry to know how it happened but by the sound of it a train from Macarthur went over a detonator towards Tarella and the train service was suspended/heavily delayed from there.

YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik

Another benefit of the old tried and true detonator. Dual benefit in warning driver and also any track or other workers in the vicinity. By all means use all the electronic wizardry that you like but in the end the local gang placing dets for their own protection cannot be beaten.

s3_gunzel Not a ~~gunzel~~ developer

Location: Western Sydney, AU

However, both area controllers incorrectly assumed the limits of the LPA were at the City end of Revesby (clear of No 51 points) rather than the Country end (clear of No 55 points) and blocking facilities were applied.

Human error.

bjwh86 Chief Train Controller

So these detonators, is the train going over them what the problem is here?
I've been on a mountains train where it has gone over them, stopped for a minute or two and continued.

waxyzebu Locomotive Driver

So these detonators, is the train going over them what the problem is here?
bjwh86

In this case, yes, because the train should not have been there owing to a possession (LPA) but appears to have been sent there in err. Running over the protection alerted the driver to that fact. Normally, a train in regular service should never run into possession protection but should be steered away from it by the signallers.

I've been on a mountains train where it has gone over them, stopped for a minute or two and continued.
bjwh86

That may have been protection for a track work authority (TWA) in an automatic section, which is normal, as a warning on the approach to a worksite.

nswtrains Chief Commissioner

In this case, yes, because the train should not have been there owing to a possession (LPA) but appears to have been sent there in err. Running over the protection alerted the driver to that fact. Normally, a train in regular service should never run into possession protection but should be steered away from it by the signallers.

That may have been protection for a track work authority (TWA) in an automatic section, which is normal, as a warning on the approach to a worksite.
waxyzebu

Waxy Zebu. Must look up what that means. Ben thinking of changing my ID to Zany Keys.

YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik

So these detonators, is the train going over them what the problem is here?
I've been on a mountains train where it has gone over them, stopped for a minute or two and continued.
bjwh86

No, the problem is that the train was at the location at all. Given that the train WAS there, it was fortuitous that it ran over the detonators as they provided an instant warning to both the driver and the gang.

There is a strong school of thought that detonators are 'old hat' (the concept is certainly over 100 years old) and that they should be replaced by some electronic wizardry. They are, however, an effective, simple, foolproof and reliable system that saves lives. Detonators also put one's own protection in one's own hands rather than in those of some button pusher 100s of kms away.

By all means include the electronics but retain the detonators.

Recent history in NSW should prove the worth of detonators even to the most idiotic bean counter or lawyer.

Spletsie Chief Commissioner

Waxy Zebu. Must look up what that means. Ben thinking of changing my ID to Zany Keys.
nswtrains

Uniform and Supplementary Telegraph Code words
http://www.trainman.id.au/telegraph.htm
WAXY Give matter special attention
ZEBU Arrange and advise all concerned

Junction box Chief Commissioner

Location: newy

The dets were in the right place per the LPA but the signaller had the blocks on the wrong signals allowing him to clear the road into the worksite by the sounds of it.
Dets are used under different rules for different reasons, two dets means bring your train under control and be prepared to stop in two km where there might be three dets which means stop or another two dets which means proceed with caution.
In this instance there was just three dets and a block on the signal per the LPA Local possession Authority.

HeadShunt Chief Train Controller

There is a strong school of thought that detonators are 'old hat' (the concept is certainly over 100 years old) and that they should be replaced by some electronic wizardry.
YM-Mundrabilla

Replaced, or worse - just abandoned without proper replacement.

Detonators, also known as fog signals or torpedoes (or, among a select few, "railway track signals"

) were invented in 1841 and predate the adoption of the block system.

Putting a train into a possession is a serious stuff up for a signaller, although it has happened plenty of times before, which is why the dets do tend to come in handy even if they shouldn't be getting run over under normal circumstances. Luckily, it didn't end in disaster, as indeed it usually does not owing to the use of protection. For the sake of those involved I hope there were extenuating circumstances and that they will perhaps read things more carefully in future. Oh well, I guess it will come out in the investigation. Maybe.

Goose Chief Train Controller

The dets were in the right place per the LPA but the signaller had the blocks on the wrong signals allowing him to clear the road into the worksite by the sounds of it.

Junction box

This is why I hate ASB working. You are relying on someone at the other end of the phone.

Blackadder Chief Commissioner

Location: Not the ECRL

This is why I hate ASB working. You are relying on someone at the other end of the phone.
Goose

Just remember the calls are logged, and when you get the assurance from the other end the section you have the ASB is clear of traffic, then you are covered if anything goes amiss.
Also have 1 or more lookouts for the additional protection

YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik

Just remember the calls are logged, and when you get the assurance from the other end the section you have the ASB is clear of traffic, then you are covered if anything goes amiss.
Also have 1 or more lookouts for the additional protection
Blackadder

Not much help if you are dead.

Mall Rat Beginner

It was an LPA not an ASB.

It seems that the Signaller did not read the STN properly, and placed the blocks on the wrong signals - in turn having an LPA with a train in the section.

I can't recall if this is in the LPA rule now days, but the old rules (say a year or two ago) the PO was meant to call the Signaller to say the protection was in place (3 dets and a flag) and where, that never ever dam well happened.

HeadShunt Chief Train Controller

Not much help if you are dead.
YM-Mundrabilla

LOL ain't that the truth!

It was an LPA not an ASB.
Mall Rat

Noone said it was an ASB... it was a comparison between the two, one with flags/dets and the other with assurances over the phone and, well, not much else...

I can't recall if this is in the LPA rule now days, but the old rules (say a year or two ago) the PO was meant to call the Signaller to say the protection was in place (3 dets and a flag) and where, that never ever dam well happened.
Mall Rat

It's a pity that points either could not be or were not clipped and locked by someone to prevent access to the possession. It really helps...

Blackadder Chief Commissioner

Location: Not the ECRL

It was an LPA not an ASB.

It seems that the Signaller did not read the STN properly, and placed the blocks on the wrong signals - in turn having an LPA with a train in the section.

I can't recall if this is in the LPA rule now days, but the old rules (say a year or two ago) the PO was meant to call the Signaller to say the protection was in place (3 dets and a flag) and where, that never ever dam well happened.
"Mall Rat"

AFAIK that is still required to be done by the PO

Goose Chief Train Controller

Also have 1 or more lookouts for the additional protection
Blackadder

That is not a requirement and is not always possible. NRMs sometimes work alone.

HeadShunt Chief Train Controller

Also have 1 or more lookouts for the additional protection

That is not a requirement and is not always possible. NRMs sometimes work alone.
Goose

Companies don't seem to want to pay the money for extra lookouts when they don't have to, not even for one lookout if they can just use two signals and be done with it. No surprises there.

Railpage

Safeworking breach near Revesby on 10 July 2013

Contact johnlush

Contact bowralcommuter

Contact YM-Mundrabilla

Contact s3_gunzel

Contact bjwh86

Contact waxyzebu

Contact nswtrains

Contact YM-Mundrabilla

Contact Spletsie

Contact Junction box

Contact HeadShunt

Contact Goose

Contact Blackadder

Contact YM-Mundrabilla

Contact Mall Rat

Contact HeadShunt

Contact Blackadder

Contact Goose

Contact HeadShunt

Quick Reply