Talk:Australian Society of Section Car Operators

	Australia portal Australian Society of Section Car Operators is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not sure why this was tagged for deletion

Not sure why it was deleted - using google as a reference is not really that reliable.

The page refers to a number of sources, but does need a tidy up in terms of its referencing.

i will do this over time

Sulzer55 (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Australian Society of Section Car Operators/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Who is the numbnut who rates but does not give comment? Sulzer55 (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 10:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 08:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

reverted changes

no comment to support the changes made.

the material in the reverted edits is in the public domain and is supported by other appropriate evidence.

it raises two issues - that of the effective management and control of the rail safety management system by those who have a duty under RSNL, and the role of the regulator in ensuring duties are being met.

reverted and tweaked page

reverted page to an earlier version to remove what may be vandalism

no justification for the changes made was provided on this page. Sadly there is significant misinformation around about some events associated with the group.

have cleaned up a few things to be more accurate and to reflect what is in the public domain. Edits previously made removed some supporting references.

Happy to discuss

Sulzer55 (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reverted changes

Unsure why changes were made - references were provided for the information that was originally provided. the Pest from ASSCO1 is back?

material originally referenced is from the ONRSR Website, and ASSCOs own publications Sulzer55 (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page updated

Changes made inline with current factual information. No point reverting back to outdated and irrelevant information and opinion. ChamberlainCase (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

have reverted as you removed referenced material that is published on the ONRSR and ASSCO sites. what has been posted is no more than gossip.

if you have references to your material, please include - see comments on your talk page Sulzer55 (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No references were removed or changed. Specific information from those references were added. Such as dates. Only parts removed were unreferenced "alleged" and irrelevant information. Information has been updated to reflect the most current. ChamberlainCase (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have been busy, but will leave you to it. If you think the operation is "safe" go for it, but reading the last copy of The trolley shed, there is a significant misunderstanding of requirements on the group and its committee in relation to accreditation and operation. A good example was a recent communication where SARC requirements in Queensland have been misinterpreted. And an Audit by the ONRSR earlier in the year identified issues, again. And why are network owners in NSW refusing to provide access? and we won't mention the level crossing issue at Dalby, or the operational issues in QLD when ASSCO ran up the Main North Line. Sulzer55 (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issues that are resolved or are in the process of being resolved. Just as the safety systems are designed to work. The last issue of The Trolley Shed is quite old news. Your post assumes a lot and sounds like gossip, as you've gotten many things wrong. Your information is tainted or simply out of date. For example ASSCO haven't accessed the Qld MNL since 2020. ONRSR periodically audit many RSO's. Found issues are addressed. One NSW RIM has refused access, unrelated to safety. Several have agreed for access or still in discussion. You sound like you have an agenda to smear ASSCO. ChamberlainCase (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]